Re: Issue 37 - new work

[address@hidden]

On Jan 29, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:

> Am 29.01.2011 09:50, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Marc Hohl<address@hidden>  writes:
>> 
>>> If this is done similar to LaTeX packages where you can enable the
>>> option "draft"
>>> to speed up compiling, and if everything looks ok, you remove the draft and
>>> that's it, then this would be not too confusing for users.
>> draft Mode in LaTeX omits details but does not change the layout or
>> pagebreaking.
>> 
> The comparison between LaTeX and LilyPond was not meant to be 1:1, of course.
> The point here was that IMHO most LaTeX users understand what "draft" means,
> so it would not be too confusing to add certain levels of processing stages.
> 
> On the other hand, I agree with you that LilyPond should simply do the best
> job without the need to fuzz around with optimization stages and whatnot.
> Human engravers didn't have a "draft" mode either ;-)
> 

True, but human engravers did not have the benefit of sending composers drafts 
every time a measure was updated.
I think that for programs like SCORE, the logic of "best job" makes perfect 
sense because it is best used for typesetting finished works.

But, given that many people make drafts in Lilypond, I think that a draft mode 
would save a lot of time in the early stages of creating a work.

However, I think that lilypond's default quality should be the highest 
possible, with people opting out of this quality for faster calculated and thus 
iffy-er looking scores.

On this note, I think that PaperColumn #'keep-inside-line = ##t and 
NonMusicalPaperColumn #'keep-inside-line = ##t should be the default options in 
Lilypond, as I cannot imagine anyone wanting markups to spill outside of the 
line width.  In a way, setting these as ##f in scm/define-grobs.scm is a form 
of "normal" optimization that leads to sub-par results.

Cheers,
MS