2010/10/20 Valentin Villenave
<address@hidden>
2010/10/20 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:
> I've finally read all this and i'm still not convinced, because these
> dicsussions don't mention my idea at all (i suggest that numbers 3, 5, 6, 7,
> 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 etc. should become valid durations, and work
> like the familiar 1, 2 , 4, 8, 16 etc.). Nevertheless, i think i should put
> this on hold (unless someone wants to discuss privately) - maybe my english
> is not good enough to explain this...
Your idea is interesting, but *very* un-LilyPond-ish in its logic. I
couldn't explain it better (and certainly not in English!), but maybe
in a few years you'll understand what I mean ;-)
Well, i'll wait a year then :) and rethink this idea again when i have more experience.
You may think of LilyPond as a language (that is now almost 15-years
old, which is a long, long time). (...)
That's when I finally understood how powerful LilyPond really is, and
how foolish I was to ask the developers to adapt Lily to my needs,
where *I* could adapt it myself just the way I wanted.
I would agree in case of a more sophisticated issue - but this one is, in my opinion at least, one of the basics. Using such tricks is undoubtedly helpful, but the code becomes less portable. Besides, new users cannot take advantage of this timesaver unless they stumble on a particular thread in mailing archives or figure it out themselves.
For me it looks like you are creating a new "dialect of the LilyPond language" - of course you are perfectly free to do this, but i prefer unification.
cheers,
Jan