Richard Shann <[email protected]> writes: >> If that was the focus of LilyPond, we >> would talk to it in MusicXML. > Hmm, I think there is a serious need to puncture the MusicXML bubble - > it is an appalling hotchpotch quite unsuited to representing typeset > music. From a casual look it seems to have been designed, but in fact > the real definition is the output of a proprietary program. > But, I do take your point, that LilyPond is intended to be written and > read by humans. It is designing for both the write and the read to be > easy that is tricky.
The LilyPond language is focused on humans. That might seem a bit hard to swallow for people not used talking to computers. But it makes LilyPond tricky to import rather than interpret. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
