Joseph Rushton Wakeling <[email protected]> writes: > I think that you personally are quite right to focus your efforts on > automation, but it doesn't mean that the efforts to build friendly > tweaking tools are a waste of time or resources ill-spent.
The problem is not with the friendly tweaking tools but with the tweaks. If you put 1000 tweaks into some music document (and Janek somewhat proudly stated putting that amount in in a recent project of his), the document is for all practical considerations locked to a particular paper format and a particular LilyPond version. You might as well archive the PDF file rather than the LilyPond source, since the LilyPond source will become unusable much faster. Serious tweaking locks down the document almost as much as postprocessing with InkScape. It's a point of no return, and one that marks the point where having the source code available loses a number of its advantages. The number we want to be talking about is maybe a tweak every few pages. A friendly tweaking tool is still nice for that, but it's not as important than when you are doing a hundred tweaks per page. But if we are talking about a hundred tweaks per page, it is extremely unlikely that those tweaks are _not_ dealing with systematic problems, and dealing with systematic problems is something that the computer does with a lot less effort and boredom and tie-in than a human in the long run. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
