|
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.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |