Kevin Donnelly wrote: > If it's easier to do, that's a big argument for it!
I haven't looked at the code. I'm only guessing. For now, I'm keeping with extending Lilypond export. > It really comes down to > whether RG is a sequencer with very good notation capabilities, or a notation > package which can sequence. The former is certainly where it is at the > minute, and there seems no reason to change that substantially. Definitely not. I also feel rather confident, that Lilypond export can be made so good that it'll provide directly usable scores without manual tweaking, if the right exportable properties are added to RG. There will always be some exotic notation which RG can't support, but you can do with Lilypond, so to provide the best solution for demanding users, the best you could do would probably be to rely on Lilypond for score printing and make the Lilypond-export as easy tweakable for Lilypond experts as possible. ...? Peter ------------------------------------------------------- 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
