On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/09/12 09:19, Janek Warchoł wrote: >> >> This is a good idea in itself, but i'm afraid we'll drown in the flood >> of suggestions if we ask this question now. Currently we want to >> focus on syntax alone. > > I do understand that, it's just that I think that proposals for syntax > changes make more sense when considered in the broader context of the > notation you want to support. I wasn't proposing asking it as a > mailing-list question, more as a project that could probably be handled by > relatively few people working from musical notation texts.
Ah, yes - we do need to make such analysis. > I don't think that members of the > Lilypond user list are necessarily representative of the range of engraving > activity that Lilypond needs to support. That's the other reason I > suggested a systematic process of checking syntax/engraving support vs. a > broad set of musical notation. You have a point. Hmm... i'm wondering whether there's any better way to do this than walk through engraving books. > there are also some surprisingly simple notations which show up here -- e.g. > Ferneyhough frequently has hairpins which last until the end of the note and > have a concluding dynamic value; that dynamic value falls at the end of the > hairpin rather than the beginning of the subsequent note (if you get me). oh yes, that's on my list of "difficult to express" things for more than a year. :) cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
