On Thursday 06 October 2005 10:07 am, Peter Mogensen wrote: > Peter Mogensen wrote: > > Correct... But some decision needs to be made about in which direction > > the notation capabilities of RG should develop. You could manage a lot > > of the currently missing features like repeats and score-layout with > > dialogues of options and segment properties. > > That would give a nice WYSIWYG notation editor, but probaby be just as > > powerful and easier to implement. > > Sorry... It should have read: "That would NOT give a nice WYSIWYG..." > (and "probably")
We're all ears on this. We've discussed two basic schools of thought. One is to use some cheap hack way of creating exportables that would Lilypond out into the desired result, but wouldn't actually be performed. The other is devising some new class of jump events that make it possible to perform these things and display them too. I think we would generally prefer to go the latter way, because it's better, but the lame way is viable if the rest of the Lilypond export mechanism can become useful and reliable. Of course flow control is only the tip of the iceberg. Silvan's Short List of Why the Notation Editor Still Isn't Terribly Useful to Me: 1a) There is no satisfactory way to manage multi-voice parts, and it is entirely too easy to accidentally produce total garbage. (Every blasted trumpet + piano solo whose piano part I would like to sequence, which is a couple dozen of them, has two voice stuff in both hands.) 1b) Tempo management Just Plain Sucks. We need all kinds of things here, like ways to have automated ritards and accels, and ways to move tempo changes at the same time as events. I imagine anybody who ever does anything other than the most ridiculously simplistic things with tempo absolutely despises our notation editor for this very reason. 2) All the flow control issues. 3) Insufficient staff grouping/sizing capabilities. No grand staff, no way to group staves together, no way to do a grand staff + cue-sized solo. No way to maintain something as a conductor part here, and split it off into per-instrument parts over there. 4) No multi-bar rests. (Actually one of my single largest beefs, but it's less important in the scheme of things.) It seems to me that dollar for dollar the sum total of all of this adds up to if you want to do these things well, skip Rosegarden, skip exporting anything, and just write all that a''' eeses' gobbledegook and get it over with. You can become a Lilypond master in 1/1000th of the time it will take any one of these features to be implemented. (This short list is basically two years old. Chris REALLY needs someone to help out with this stuff, but everyone who has tried in the past has been all big ideas, all big talk, and then all running away to hide somewhere without accomplishing much of anything. Most especially me! Because this code is tangly and fiddly in the extreme, and all of these challenges are HARD.) -- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
