[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LSR categories
From: |
Mats Bengtsson |
Subject: |
Re: LSR categories |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:40:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061206) |
Graham Percival wrote:
Agree! Often such division into different categories don't help at
all, they just give you more places to search from.
Other than one example (scheme programming), I have no objection to
this -- but please don't say "text, lyrics, articulation etc". I'd
like to discuss exact proposals.
Why is scheme programming so special? If I, as an ordinary user, want to
solve
a certain typesetting problem, I mostly don't have any idea if the
solution requires
Scheme programming or not and at least as long as the solution can be
copy/pasted
into my own file as it is, I wouldn't care.
What you probably have in mind is good examples to learn Scheme
programming,
but unless these examples are very contrived they will also solve some
practical
typesetting problem.
/Mats
- LSR categories, Graham Percival, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, yota moteuchi, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Bertalan Fodor, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Mats Bengtsson, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Graham Percival, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Graham Percival, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories,
Mats Bengtsson <=
- Re: LSR categories, Graham Percival, 2007/01/24
- Re: LSR categories, Graham Percival, 2007/01/24