Re: critical issues

[Janek Warchoł]

2012/1/5 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 2012/1/4 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>> \layout {
>>>   \layout-from { \compressFullBarRests
>>>     \override Score.SpacingSpanner #'common-shortest-duration =
>>>     #(ly:make-moment 6 10)
>>>   }
>>>   etc...
>>> }
>>
>> ok...  However - i'm very sorry to say this :/ - it would be better if
>> i wouldn't have to type \layout-from at all.
>
> \layout is not the place to accept arbitrary music.

i understand.  I think my answer is "maybe \layout could work
differently than now"? [1]

>> I know that it's not much typing, and that \layout-from is an
>> improvement, but from the end-user perspective it's in fact PITA: when
>> use \layout, when \layout-from?
>
> \layout-from takes music and extracts context definitions.

Say this to a LilyPond newbie.  He'll understand 2 words: "music", "and".

>> :( Again, i'm very sorry beacause from the programmer's perspective
>> it's nothing, but for simple users understanding what \layout does is
>> hard enough;
>
> \layout definitions don't have a syntax compatible with music.

That's exactly what worries me as an end-user who doesn't like to
think when he doesn't absolutely have to.  It's similar to
set-override-tweak problem: for you it's obvious that these are 3
different things, and when to use what.  For me it seems like
unnecessary multiplication of commands that seem to work similar (i.e.
they set some property/parameter/whatever).

> If \layout accepted music and mostly ignored it, simple users would not
> understand what it does, and advanced users would not either.
>
>> And i want to enter notes, not some \overridden << \layoutish
>> ##Scheme## >> :( :( :(
>
> Nobody keeps you from entering \compressFullBarRests and stuff right in
> your music.  That's their default place of writing them.
>
> As a programmer, I prefer putting the declarations where they make sense
> and apply document-wide.  Nobody forces you to do it in that manner if
> you prefer jamming everything explicitly into the music which, after
> all, is the designed user interface for it.

David, you are of course 100% right and i don't want to deny you!
Surely it doesn't make any sense to put declarations intended for
document-wide settings inside actual music declarations.

What i want to say is, i'm afraid you might have forgotten how it
feels to be a non-programmer.  It's not a joke that for average person
that wants to produce some notation, it's hard enough to use text
input.  Let me rephrase that: take a random person who searches for
music notation program and stumbles over out site.  *Learning how to
create* this input

\relative c, {
  \clef "bass"
  \time 3/4
  \tempo "Andante" 4 = 120
  c2 e8 c'
  g'2.
  f4 e d
  c4 c, r
}

is a big enough challenge for such a person.  I guess 50% fails, not
because they're idiots, but because it really is hard if you haven't
done it before (and very few ever wrote code).  I don't like it, but
that's the world we live in.

cheers,
Janek

[1] I think that a more detailed discussion should be a part of GLISS.