On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > LilyPond is supposed to > be useful without having to extend it. > >> In other words, an a-priori refusal of Scheme isn't helpful if you >> want to explore the capabilities of LilyPond. > > If you want to _extend_ them. LilyPond is nowhere near the state where > every imaginable music typesetting task is available as a turnkey > solution. But that does not mean having to use Scheme is an ideal or a > goal for LilyPond. > > Many houseowners get along without doing masonry themselves.
+1 > Our Scheme introductions are not really much more than a cursory > introduction. Explaining the concepts of Scheme exhaustively would be > beyond the LilyPond manuals. > > Its purpose is mostly getting people's feet wet enough that they don't > see the point in putting their socks back on. > > It would seem that we need to do a bit more splashing before this works > reliably. :) cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
