Kieren MacMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, Bruce: >> Users dealing with LilyPond as it evolves are presented with >> difficult choices, none good. > Well, "none good" might be a bit harsh... ;-) > But your point is well taken. >> If you can identify a better way, or have other comments, please >> respond. > Always keep your note code (i.e., content) separate from your score > and tweak code (i.e., presentation) -- basic note code syntax has > been (IMO) fairly stable over the last several versions, with the > chord/simultaneous-music swap (i.e., <> swapped with <<>>) being the > last major one I can remember. > > I have experienced acceptably smooth migrations since about v2.1; > when things got rough(er) it was almost always because I hadn't > abstracted my code sufficiently.
Hi Kieren, You're wasting your time, Bruce has been told what you're explaining (the data vs layout stuff) several times, but keeps on complaining: according to him, syntax changes are never justified, and he should not be the one making an effort when changing LilyPond version; Han-Wen should, by providing ten year backward compatibility. Freely. nicolas _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
