On 16 Aug 2005, at 10:03, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
I figure so. But I do not know the worth of the effort of
pursuing it. One can perhaps draw a parallel to the TeX macro
package LaTeX, which in its original form was too rigid for
general use, and too difficult to reprogram; therefore, in part
for such reasons, the LaTeX3 project was created.
I would rather view LaTeX as a great success and I have to admit I
haven't seen any useful output of the LaTeX3 project, but that's off
topic.
I think it might have some relevance in the context of making
LilyPond more easily accessible. The original LaTeX wasn't used by
mathematicians, for example. As for LaTeX3, the development team only
came to LaTeX2 :-), which solved many of the problems or original
LaTeX. When LaTeX3 started to come up for development, another
question started to become more important, namely finding a suitable
TeX successor.
LilyPond is more specific in focus, but might undergo similar
developments. First, implementation efforts to make things work,
combined with a series of packages, making it easier to use. Finally,
that experience may result in a LilyPond successor (which might be
named LilyPond, if the development team is still around).
So now, you know what will happen with LilyPond the next ten years. :-)
Hans Aberg
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
