Andrew Bernard <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
Well, accolades are nice and everything, but if we are talking about frequently desired functionality, it makes sense that enough hooks are in LilyPond itself that a custom layout can then be called upon with one rather than 20 pages of Scheme code. Of course, it is not always easy to figure out what is required often enough. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
