Hi Urs (et al.), > This is a very good idea, and it is good you brought it up for > discussion. I had a very similar plan with regard to the openLilyLib > presentation on Sunday.
Excellent! > I think the main target audience for the Sunday topics is people who > are very much into LilyPond and its development anyway. Probably there > are random participants, but anybody who stays for another night will > very much have a quite specific reason to do so. Nobody will need to > learn at that point what the edition-engraver or openLilyLib are Well, with my 10 minutes, I’m still going to try not to leave someone "in the dust"… =) > Given what I wrote above I can imagine you could even reduce that to > not more than 10 minutes by sending example files before. I’ll do that. > I would put “solving low-level technical issues” to the bottom of that > list. This is something that may not be too suitable for discussion in > the larger group since (I suspect) nobody except Jan-Peter will be able > to discuss such issues spontaneously. I suppose I mean more like J-P asking “Why, when I try to make the EE do X, it does Y?”, and David K saying “Well, Lilypond sees X as Z, so you need to write Z->X first” or whatever. > What I think would be most helpful and making most of the “historic > situation“ would be discussing ways how to get the edition-engraver > integrated in LilyPond. Yes. Would love that. > Integration of the edition-engraver in Frescobaldi is another issue > with additional implications. We won't directly support it until it is > integrated in LilyPond. Ah. It’s good to know the order of operations on that. > However, there is one road that can be pursued, > and that is Frescobaldi's new extension API. That’s what I was thinking. > What do you think? I like the direction that day is heading in. Thanks, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: [email protected]
