Re: question about transposing an interval of a 4th

[Eyolf Østrem]

On 22.12.2008 (12:03), Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 06:21:56PM +0100, Eyolf ?strem wrote:
> > 1. Make no mistake about it: using LilyPond IS to be a programmer, to a
> > greater or lesser extent. And even though the plain an simple sheets with a
> > melody line and a title "just" calls for a scripting language programmer,
> 
> Not only that, but simply thinking about music expressions
> requires a certain amount of programmer-like thought.  I still see
> newbies posting here when their misunderstanding traces back to
> not understanding music expressions... but hopefully that will
> lessen once 2.12 is out and people read the updated tutorial.

Precisely. And there are three levels here, which require different
treatment: a) what is a music expression in the first place ("a compound
something something which can consist of any number of elements of
different types denoting musical content, with properties which can be
tuned in various ways"). This I think is taken well care of in the new docs;
b) all the different kinds of properties, the problem here being mainly
syntactical: there is a bewildering amount of possibilities, not
necessarily easy to find (although it has improved a lot) and every letter
has to be EXACTLY RIGHT. This is where a macro layer would be helpful, but
as 

On 22.12.2008 (14:52), Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
 
> This may be possible as far as scheme is concerned, but I don't think it's
> possible for context properties.  Until all collisions and spacing can be
> automatically resolved, users will need access to the context properties in
> order to resolve collisions or incorrect spacing.

Although I don't imagine a macro system *replacing* the direct access, only
*simplifying* it.

c) scheme functions; the "real" programming stuff: how to automate tasks,
use loops and conditions, etc. Realistically, this is probabaly where a
user with no interest in or experience with programming will be lost
anyway, so apart from explaining what all those parentheses do, there may
not be much more to do than to say "learn scheme" and point to some good
introductions. A macro layer would be helpful, though.

As also, on 22.12.2008 (14:52), Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
 
> Predefined scheme packages are a great idea, IMO.
 
On 22.12.2008 (12:03), Graham Percival wrote:
> > 2. Minimize the visibility of scheme (and the direct envolvement with LP's
> > context properties etc.) by developing a more complete macro layer between
> > the user and the backend, the way LaTeX sits between TeX and the user.
> 
> Stuff along those lines are planned for GOP... 

Good! 
 
> but just like the
> extent of doc work in GDP, it all depends on the amount of time
> and effort that users are prepared to give.

Of course.

Eyolf

-- 
It is exactly because a man cannot do a thing that he is a proper judge of it.
                -- Oscar Wilde