|
From: | Urs Liska |
Subject: | Re: Add original-breaks.ly commands (issue 150670043 by address@hidden) |
Date: | Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:38:48 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 |
Am 09.10.2014 11:27, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:Am 09.10.2014 10:44, schrieb David Kastrup:Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:And I would really love to see that being part of LilyPond itself and not only possible to implement in a library. Firstly because I would like *all* LilyPond users to have that available and secondly because I would like to add this as a Layout Control Option to Frescobaldi.When those goals conflict with placing specific functionality in a library, we have an infrastructure problem. We won't solve that problem by cramming everything into the core, not least of all because such specific solutions cannot really reliably be turned into a one-size-fits-all approach. So it is important _not_ to have shrinkwrapped functionality for a particular purpose _forced_ onto users but have it loadable on demand. And be able to offer choice between one or several different solutions as well as rolling your own.My approach *is* loadable on demand (just as the guitar fretboards). What *could* make sense in my opinion is instead of adding "secondary" files to the /ly directory adding them to a separate directory which could contain such add-ons. Is there anything that makes my suggestion less general than, say, the mentioned guitar fretboards?Yes. The guitar fretboards concern a whole family of instruments literally millions of people play. Your extension makes only very limited sense for scores reproducing the "original breaks" of a single canonical original document. That's a rather specific situation.
Now I start to see your misunderstanding.
If the breaks in _one_ version of a score are so important, why is that the _only_ conceivable version of the score with relevant breaks?
Where did I say that such a version is the only conceivable version of the score?
And if that is the only conceivable version, why would we put the breaks in conditionally?
Because one wouldn't want to *finally* produce a version of the score with the breaks of the original score. If that's my interest (which then would actually be a "rather specific situation") I can simply use hardcoded \break commands.
The whole point of these conditional commands is to have a tool (maybe you can call it an editing mode) to match LilyPond's output with the *one* version of the score I'm copying from, that is the one I have on my desktop in front of me.
And such a tool would (positively) affect a whole family of music engravers, namely those who are engraving music from an existing copy. I think the ratio between these and music engravers who don't do this is significantly closer to 50:50 than the ration between engravers writing music for fretboard instruments and those who don't.
If they are disabled, we could be producing _another_ document with breaks that nobody should ever want to reproduce.
If they are disabled (after music entry and proof-reading has been completed) we will produce a document that benefits from LilyPond's quality.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |