On Friday 07 Oct 2005 05:52, Silvan wrote: > One [option] 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.
Well, with regard to repeats in your first option, we _could_ quite easily make repeat marks that displayed and could be edited in the Rosegarden notation editor, and exported to Lilypond, but were not actually played in Rosegarden. Or, we could make repeat marks that displayed and could be edited in Rosegarden's notation editor _and_ might even play, but weren't easily (meaningfully) displayed or edited in the sequencer bit. Hm. > Silvan's Short List of Why the Notation Editor Still Isn't Terribly > Useful to Me: Good summary. I think it's about time we made an experimental branch for messing about with notation stuff. One of the problems we've had is that it's too easy to break things, and in a way that can take a lot of time and work to recover. I quite like the idea of being able to mess about and try out no-more-than half-worked-out thoughts again. Chris ------------------------------------------------------- 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
