Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:47:43PM +0000, Cláudia Soares wrote:
>
> On 2009/03/28, at 13:46, Graham Percival wrote:
>>
>> Also, convert-ly requires decorator functions (I think that was
>> the name), which are another 2.4 feature.
>>
> decorators are another issue. No back compatibility in python < 2.4.
> Sometimes I wonder why are we coding python if it changes so much...

Heh.  Not to mention the changes in python 3.0!  :)

> Does Guido expects that we keep rewriting our old work over and over  
> again?

I expect so... then again, lilypond breaks backwards compatibility
(without it even working in convert-ly) more often than I'd like,
so I can't precisely complain about this.

> Thank you, you've been quite helpful. I hope I can contribute on this. If 
> lilypond-book manages to get well&easily installed in the mac systems 
> maybe the big bunch of musicians and mac users start to switch to 
> lilypond, namely to prepare lesson materials or simple texts with musical 
> ideas. This latex lilypond integration is a very good concept.

I'd quite like it to work easily on OSX, although I think that
convert-ly is much more important than lilypond-book -- any OSX
user who uses LaTeX will have no problem manually changing the
  #!/usr/bin/foo
although they will rightly be annoyed by it.

However, there are many OSX users who *aren't* so technically
inclined as to use LaTeX, and they *will* have difficulty changing
the line in convert-ly.  Of course, those users would still need
to install python from macports or fink.


I really think that shipping python 2.4 is the best solution, but
this obviously requires much more work on GUB.  :|

Cheers,
- Graham