lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]


From: Kieren MacMillan
Subject: Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:04:56 -0500

Hi Stan,

Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing Lilypond's "grammar?"

I agree:

1. By using "poor Lilypond grammar", I can write an .ly file which compiles and outputs a "valid" score of Beethoven 9, but is essentially unreadable (as an input file) by any human, including well-trained Lily users.

2. I could also use "good Lilypond grammar", and produce an .ly file *also* compiles and outputs a "valid" score of Beethoven 9 -- visually indistinguishable from the other version -- and yet is (much more easily) readable than the previous .ly file, and thus is more effective at communicating Lilypond-ness.

I think we should all be striving for #2.  =)

Best regards,
Kieren.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]