On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Christ van Willegen
cvwille...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net
wrote:
From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send
Christ van Willegen cvwille...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to
someone in Europe.
The
Are either Flattr or Bitcoin possible good alternatives?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Christ van Willegen cvwille...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM,
On 17/06/12 23:12, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamaratim...@bitstream.net wrote:
From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to someone in Europe.
The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know what the recipient
fees are.
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 17/06/12 23:12, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamaratim...@bitstream.net wrote:
From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to
someone in Europe.
The currency exchange is
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:33:47 +0200
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Janek Warcho? janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: 87hauty35g@fencepost.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com writes:
Message: 2
Ok, so the messages I've taken away so far are, Lilypond Website
Commercialism Danger! Battlestations, and, You can already sneak
into my room and leave money in my sock drawer, why do I need to draw
you a website?
Frankly, you already
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote:
It'd be nice if someone else (i.e., not me) figured out a user-friendly way
for people
to donate money to the Lilypond devs without having the entire donation eaten
up
in the fees accrued from time spent trying to
On Jun 17, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote:
It'd be nice if someone else (i.e., not me) figured out a user-friendly way
for people
to donate money to the Lilypond devs without having
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to someone in
Europe.
The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know what the recipient
fees are.
According to their website it's between 0 and 4%
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to someone in
Europe.
The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know
Am 12.06.2012 19:48, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
form = {
\repeat unfold 4 { s1*4 \break }
}
music = {
\repeat unfold 64 a'4
}
\music \form
Actually this doesn't work. You will need something like this:
music = \relative c'' {
\repeat unfold 8 { a4 b c d e d c b }
}
\oneVoice
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Helge Kruse helge.kruse-nos...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 12.06.2012 19:48, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
...but without \\. You don't want to have \music typeset as first
voice (upstemmed).
Nope, as you can see I changed the music definition so that you get both
notes
Ivan Kuznetsov ivan.k.kuznet...@gmail.com writes:
Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of
music notation likewise has to be complex.
Music consists of many notes and parts. Any music instrument likewise
has to consist of many notes and parts. For example, you can play
several
I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
\version information
\paper information
\form information (number of bars, repeat locations, bars-per-line,
rehearsal mark locations, number of staves,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
Let me respond as a musician rather than as a programmer, because I am the
first and I am not the second. A lot of the syntax of Lilypond makes little
sense except perhaps to people used to coding. If you're a
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak,
that would be huge.
+1
Wilbert (author
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:22:55 -0500
Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
\version information
\paper information
\form information (number of bars,
On 12 juin 2012, at 08:35, Josiah Boothby wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:22:55 -0500
Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
\version information
\paper
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
Couldn't agree more - LilyPond already has all of this. Every score I've
created since 2008 does this in some way or another. Four bars per system in
simple music? No problem.
form = {
\repeat unfold 4
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
David Nalesnik already did this:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1id=838
I think the issue at this point is not LilyPond's lack of ability to
do this or that,
but rather the lack of a vibrant cookbook culture like Python has.
I think
2012/6/12 Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com:
I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak,
that would be huge.
LilyPondTool already does this.
--
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:45:24PM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
of simplification and
Colin Hall colingh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:45:24PM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara
tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote:
2012/6/12 Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com:
I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
preview pdf and automatically insert code to make
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
David Nalesnik already did this:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1id=838
I think the issue at this point is not LilyPond's lack of ability to
do this or that,
but rather the
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:03:53PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
David Nalesnik already did this:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1id=838
I think the issue at this point
2012/6/12 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
LilyPondTool already does this.
wow!
It's called the ruler tool and it allows this:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-02/msg00150.html
The code won't work unmodified on current LP but you get the idea.
--
Francisco Vila.
On Jun 12, 2012, at 1:28 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
Let me respond as a musician rather than as a programmer, because I am the
first and I am not the second. A lot of the syntax of Lilypond makes little
sense except
On Jun 12, 2012, at 1:15 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
\version information
\paper information
\form information (number of bars, repeat locations,
- Original Message -
From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com
To: Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
2012/6/12 Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com
Am 12.06.2012 08:57, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
form = {
\repeat unfold 4 { s1*4 \break }
}
music = {
\repeat unfold 64 a'4
}
\music \form
Actually this doesn't work. You will need something like this:
music = \relative c'' {
\repeat unfold 8 { a4 b c d e d c b }
}
\oneVoice
Tim McNamara wrote:
I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard skeleton
for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
\version information
\paper information
\form information (number of bars, repeat locations, bars-per-line, rehearsal
mark locations,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Helge Kruse helge.kruse-nos...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 12.06.2012 08:57, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
form = {
\repeat unfold 4 { s1*4 \break }
}
music = {
\repeat unfold 64 a'4
}
\music \form
Actually this doesn't work. You will need something like
On 12/06/12 07:30, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jonathan Wilkesjancs...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak,
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly
and is going to
Ivan Kuznetsov ivan.k.kuznet...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
dramatically; a lot of the code
Can anyone recommend a book or website for learning Scheme as it
currently exists in Lilypond? So that I won’t start using deprecated
features or whatever. I’m fluent in Lua (which I like a lot).
I found Kent Dybvig's book to be useful and readable: http://scheme.com/tspl4/.
Scheme as it
On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote:
As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
dramatically; a lot of the
Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of
music notation likewise has to be complex.
Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal
of features.
The only other alternative is to use a WYSIWYG
editor where you draw the musical notation you
want, and good luck waiting for
Hi TIm,
I agree with much of what you said. However
It is not all that easy to make Lilypond to do things like setting four bars
to the line (something jazz musicians tend to like).
That's pretty darned simple now — check the archives for more details.
=)
Cheers,
Kieren.
Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net writes:
Why is it like this? Because the focus of Lilypond has been, to
a great degree, to create something that enables users to
produce beautiful sheet music. That is the raison d'être of
Lilypond. The main focus has not been on user friendliness and
On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of
music notation likewise has to be complex.
Hmm, it would be more accurate to say music notation *can* be complex. It
can also be very simple. I use Lilypond for creating jazz lead
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:21:08 -0500
From: Ivan Kuznetsov ivan.k.kuznet...@gmail.com
To: Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net
Cc: lilypond-user Users lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID:
caasqlbw+e4rk81trxcvdbxoe9i4_brzz7+gwk1miarsuhvg
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:22:55AM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal
of features.
With all due respect, that is IMHO incorrect. Lilypond's syntax
could be simplified through pursuing
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 07/06/12 05:24, David Kastrup wrote:
You picked a _Scheme_ function, not a music function. That does not, I
repeat _not_ at all show how you embed this thing into your LilyPond
code, and we were talking about using D as an
Please. Stop.
This discussion is going nowhere.
And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
Whoever believes to know better than our currently most active
programmer should come up with some useful code.
Henning Hraban Ramm hra...@fiee.net writes:
Please. Stop.
This discussion is going nowhere.
And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
Actually, I am not as much discussing ideal worlds rather than the
On 10/06/12 08:14, David Kastrup wrote:
The discussion is not useful. It distracts from work needing to get
done, without offering perspectives that are actually feasible since
they are neither thought through nor have the resources for tackling
them _if_ they made sense and were planned out.
Am 2012-06-10 um 11:58 schrieb David Kastrup:
Henning Hraban Ramm hra...@fiee.net writes:
Please. Stop.
This discussion is going nowhere.
And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
The architecture of
On 07/06/12 05:24, David Kastrup wrote:
You picked a _Scheme_ function, not a music function. That does not, I
repeat _not_ at all show how you embed this thing into your LilyPond
code, and we were talking about using D as an _extension_ language of
LilyPond, not about its usefulness as a
On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 05/06/12 08:53, David Kastrup wrote:
I would doubt that this would have been the fault of Scheme. More
likely a problem of the Scheme/LilyPond interface choices, but those
choices don't go away when replacing Scheme.
No, it
On 07/06/12 14:54, Tim McNamara wrote:
Hmm. The way you wrote that, it appears that the fault is not with Scheme but
the with one's unfamiliarity with Scheme. This is certainly *my* problem with
understanding the Scheme-based extensions in Lilypond. And yet when I look at
them I can intuit
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
Well, it's that unfamiliarity that I'm talking about, really. My
point isn't that Scheme is bad in itself but that using it means that
virtually _everyone_ wanting to script or work on LilyPond has to
learn a new language, syntax
On 07/06/12 17:31, David Kastrup wrote:
I think that a larger barrier is actually the use of features like
modules in a non-documented and non-obvious way.
Can you explain this in greater detail? Would be useful to understand this
better before replying to your earlier, longer message on the
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 07/06/12 17:31, David Kastrup wrote:
I think that a larger barrier is actually the use of features like
modules in a non-documented and non-obvious way.
Can you explain this in greater detail? Would be useful to understand
On 8/06/2012, at 1:54 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
The first few chapters of SICP would probably be very helpful.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-10.html
SICP does for computer programming what Linderholm's classic 'Mathematics Made
Difficult' does for arithmetic -- except
On 8 June 2012 07:44, Matthew Collett m_coll...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
SICP does for computer programming what Linderholm's classic 'Mathematics
Made Difficult' does for arithmetic -- except that in this case the authors
are entirely serious.
It didn’t seem too scary to me, or at least the start
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
[...]
Let me summarize the gist of that long reply:
My answer to the question What do you think of Scheme as LilyPond's
extension language? would be the same as the famous response to the
question Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?: I
think
On 05/06/12 08:53, David Kastrup wrote:
I would doubt that this would have been the fault of Scheme. More
likely a problem of the Scheme/LilyPond interface choices, but those
choices don't go away when replacing Scheme.
No, it was the fault of the unfamiliar Scheme syntax. A colleague used
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
So please, try again. This time picking something that actually
solves a task in LilyPond.
Something like
Documentation/snippets/adding-extra-fingering-with-scheme.ly (which
actually does a ridiculous amount using Scheme rather than #{...#} but
let's
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Let me try to rephrase things: the more functionality is moved into
the Scheme layers, the less people you can find who are capable of
working on it.
On 05/06/12 06:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always get new
perspectives on programming.
I, like most people, have only a limited amount of time. Learning a
programming language well enough to write code that sticks to wall
when you throw it, is a
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 05/06/12 06:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always get new
perspectives on programming.
I, like most people, have only a limited amount of time. Learning a
programming language well
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:57 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I'm wondering, do you think that learning a new language such as scheme
would scare you away from hacking on LilyPond, if you discovered it?
As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always get new
perspectives on
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:57 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I'm wondering, do you think that learning a new language such as scheme
would scare you away from hacking on LilyPond, if you discovered it?
As long as you seek out new technologies,
On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net
On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for
things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management
and
From: Tim McNamara
On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net
On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support
for
things we desperately need: reflection,
Jeff Barnes wrote:
While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for now, there
are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing.
That's not entirely clear. The discussion was originally about the
choice of Scheme as an extension language. Qt is clearly not an answer
to
From: Tim Roberts
Jeff Barnes wrote:
While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for
now, there are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing.
That's not entirely clear.
I don't think starting from here is fair, Tim. You didn't quote enough context.
The
Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com writes:
From: Tim Roberts
In what way does Qt represent an extension strategy?
Using C++ to extend Lily.
C++ is not useful for extending LilyPond. It is its skeleton substance,
but is not user serviceable. Qt would not change that.
With the benefit that
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Let me try to rephrase things: the more functionality is moved into
the Scheme layers, the less people you can find who are capable of
working on it.
For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself
On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for
things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management
and callbacks.
How about D?
http://dlang.org/
This seems to me to be a great choice for much of LP's needs.
On 03/06/12 14:17, David Kastrup wrote:
How about first getting C++/Scheme right? As I already explained,
cleaning up the mess of layers and control flow will
a) give a better basis for judging that approach
b) make it easier to migrate individual layers to something else if
desired
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 03/06/12 14:17, David Kastrup wrote:
How about first getting C++/Scheme right? As I already explained,
cleaning up the mess of layers and control flow will
a) give a better basis for judging that approach
b) make it easier to
On 03/06/12 17:44, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't want to remove as much C++ as possible. That's about as
useful as to remove as much C as possible from Emacs. The point is to
consider C++ as the building language for primitives, and tie together
the primitives in Scheme.
OK, I misinterpreted
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 03/06/12 17:44, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't want to remove as much C++ as possible. That's about as
useful as to remove as much C as possible from Emacs. The point is to
consider C++ as the building language for primitives,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
But can we stop arguing about commercializing lilypond.org? As a
result of a fair amount of arguments, we have a sponsorship page.
Do you really want to re-open that debate? after only a few
months? I'm pretty
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:30:01AM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
2012/6/1 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
And lilynet is a good place for experimental / unofficial stuff.
Well, http://wiki.lilynet.net/index.php/Special:RecentChanges
-snip problems-
I am sorry, I don't really want
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
Now i've found
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-12/msg00124.html
and it looks like the discussion happened when i was absent.
As per GOP 6, it was a private email discussion so no archives are
available.
So,
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
So, apologies - and where can i read detailed policies?
Detailed policy is pretty much exactly what is shown on that
webpage,
ok. I think that
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
So, apologies - and where can i read detailed policies?
Detailed policy is pretty much exactly what
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
ok. I think that adding a /small/ donation progress bar in David's
description wouldn't be a violation of the rules. But i don't insist.
+1. I've been talking for years about a donation thermometer like
they have on
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Let me try to rephrase things: the more functionality is moved into
the Scheme layers, the less people you can find who are capable of
working on it.
For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplays learning a new
programming language by far. Moreover, learning
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org writes:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Let me try to rephrase things: the more functionality is moved into
the Scheme layers, the less people you can find who are capable of
working on it.
For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplays learning a new
2012/6/1 Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org:
For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplays learning a new
programming language by far.
In other words, saying Who's going to learn LilyPond? Nobody will!
is more or less the same as saying Who is going to learn Scheme to
contribute to
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes:
2012/6/1 Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org:
For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplays learning a new
programming language by far.
In other words, saying Who's going to learn LilyPond? Nobody will!
is more or less the same as saying Who
Hi David,
Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
writing music rather than listening to it.
In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a [very, very small] subset of a
[very small]
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
writing music rather than listening to it.
In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a [very, very small] subset of
a
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Hi David,
Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
writing music rather than listening to it.
In other words, composers who use
From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca
Hi David,
Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
writing music rather than listening to it.
In other words, composers who use Lilypond
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:02:02 +0200
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Hi David,
Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
writing
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes:
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
writing music rather than listening to it.
In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a
Hi Nils (et al.),
Authors may write in Microsoft Word and Comic Sans, they can give it to their
publisher who then can use whatever they need, with a pro-grade typographer
person, to create the real deal. The content stays, the format gets better.
Similar situation with music notation.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Jeff Barnes jbarnes...@yahoo.com wrote:
It sounds like it would be quite valuable to know the commonalities of this
very very small very small group for positioning Lily and for future
development direction.
Have you read my articles in The LilyPond Report
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:18:58 +0200
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
Message-ID: 87bol3osql@fencepost.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes
Francisco Vila writes:
2012/6/1 Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org:
For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplays learning a new
programming language by far.
In other words, saying Who's going to learn LilyPond? Nobody will!
is more or less the same as saying Who is going to learn
Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com writes:
You should have a look at the website for Ardour if you haven't
already. Paul has a little bar that fills up toward a monthly total,
and has an easy donation method that is highly visible. You might
also want to get in touch with him to get some
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Anyway, I am _one_ developer of several, and it would be inappropriate
to turn the LilyPond website into a personal payment collector for
myself. And Paul Davis runs a decidedly larger part (and also has
larger
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:02PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
David's right. However, i think it would be ok to add a monthly
donations progress bar on the sponsoring subpage
(http://www.lilypond.org/sponsoring.html), under David's name.
What do you think? To me this would be more like
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
