Re: Problem with remove bar number/ why I'm not upgrading to the new stable version

[Joram Berger]

Am 27.10.2012 14:13, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>> Well, as a matter of fact, LilyPond uses Scheme to extend its
>> functionality.  This won't change.
It is a very unintuitive language to me. But I fear I have to live with
it, when dealing with LilyPond in a bit more detail.

> I don't think this is an accurate comparison.  LilyPond is supposed to
> be useful without having to extend it.
I appreciate very much that this works very well (using LilyPond without
extending it) and it's a great achievement in itself.

> If you want to _extend_ them.  LilyPond is nowhere near the state where
> every imaginable music typesetting task is available as a turnkey
> solution.  But that does not mean having to use Scheme is an ideal or a
> goal for LilyPond.
> 
> Many houseowners get along without doing masonry themselves.
+1

As many people said before: It's great and I hope this will stay a goal
of the LilyPond development, that you can use it without scheme, and
even without tweaking too much for most of the cases.
For power users, it is great that you can so much magic and extend
LilyPond with scheme functions (which also helps other users with a
reduced understanding like me, who can just copy-paste such code from
the LSR, for example).

Cheers,
Joram