Am 09.10.2014 11:27, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes:
Am 09.10.2014 10:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes:
And I would really love to see that being part of LilyPond itself and
not only possible to implement in a library.
Firstly because I would like *all* LilyPond users to have that
available and secondly because I would like to add this as a Layout
Control Option to Frescobaldi.
When those goals conflict with placing specific functionality in a
library, we have an infrastructure problem. We won't solve that problem
by cramming everything into the core, not least of all because such
specific solutions cannot really reliably be turned into a
one-size-fits-all approach.
So it is important _not_ to have shrinkwrapped functionality for a
particular purpose _forced_ onto users but have it loadable on demand.
And be able to offer choice between one or several different solutions
as well as rolling your own.
My approach *is* loadable on demand (just as the guitar fretboards).
What *could* make sense in my opinion is instead of adding "secondary"
files to the /ly directory adding them to a separate directory which
could contain such add-ons. Is there anything that makes my suggestion
less general than, say, the mentioned guitar fretboards?
Yes. The guitar fretboards concern a whole family of instruments
literally millions of people play.
Your extension makes only very limited sense for scores reproducing the
"original breaks" of a single canonical original document. That's a
rather specific situation.
Now I start to see your misunderstanding.
If the breaks in _one_ version of a score
are so important, why is that the _only_ conceivable version of the
score with relevant breaks?
Where did I say that such a version is the only conceivable version of
the score?
And if that is the only conceivable
version, why would we put the breaks in conditionally?
Because one wouldn't want to *finally* produce a version of the score
with the breaks of the original score. If that's my interest (which then
would actually be a "rather specific situation") I can simply use
hardcoded \break commands.
The whole point of these conditional commands is to have a tool (maybe
you can call it an editing mode) to match LilyPond's output with the
*one* version of the score I'm copying from, that is the one I have on
my desktop in front of me.
And such a tool would (positively) affect a whole family of music
engravers, namely those who are engraving music from an existing copy. I
think the ratio between these and music engravers who don't do this is
significantly closer to 50:50 than the ration between engravers writing
music for fretboard instruments and those who don't.
If they are
disabled, we could be producing _another_ document with breaks that
nobody should ever want to reproduce.
If they are disabled (after music entry and proof-reading has been
completed) we will produce a document that benefits from LilyPond's quality.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
