Hi Robert, Welcome to the lilypond universe.
In relation to Scheme code volume, your assumption is a bit off. The LSR you refer to is about a typical size Scheme function for the level of functionality it is providing. It's not twenty pages after all, and for a fluent Scheme programmer, it is not overly difficult code to comprehend. I'd also add that it is not so much the case the lilypond is broken and fails to function, but that lilypond just fails to provide a particular function that you have need of. The principal beauty of lilypond is that it can be extended, generally using Scheme, to do pretty much anything you can think of in musical notation. I set hugely complex New Complexity School scores mostly, and lilypond fails to provide a large number of things I require. But it is not broken. I have developed a library of Scheme code to add the functionality I need. It is a joy to be able to do so, that the lilypond architecture allows this extensibility. A tribute to the wisdom of the original architects and developers of lilypond. Andrew On 24 July 2016 at 23:53, Robert Edge wrote: > I am assuming that no one writes that much scheme code unless the > functionality is broken in Lilypond proper. I'll prepare a bug report. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
