Re: Problem with remove bar number/ why I'm not upgrading to the new stable version

[james]

On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

> james <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:15 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> …
>>> What you are witnessing on the user list is the
>>> emergence of "power users", a class of users narrowing the gap between
>>> users and core developers.  Yes, they juggle with complex material.  But
>>> that does not mean that things have actually become more complex, 
>>> .…
>> 
>> This. This is exactly why I read the lists far less and respond far
>> less. I have no clue when it comes to scheme.
> 
> So you would prefer it if people got stuck already at a level you are
> more comfortable with?

I'm sorry that you inferred that from what I said. No. I am perfectly fine with 
everybody using lilypond at the level they are comfortable with.
> 
>> Most of the responses involve functions or macros or whatever they're
>> called, but generally, when something starts off with #(, I checkout
>> mentally because whatever follows will take me at least a half an hour
>> (if at all) to understand what I, in my less sophisticated
>> understanding of lilypond would have done with \set or \override.
> 
> Well, then you should rather applaud the trend to
> 
> a) make it possible for power users to write functions and user
> interfaces encapsulating more complex functionality, stuff you can then
> treat and employ as black boxes solving a task for you while having the
> appearance of something that LilyPond can do "natively".

And I do. I just don't understand them, and when I ask a question, I frequently 
don't understand the answer.

> 
> b) make it possible to check out of Scheme again and back into LilyPond
> with #{ ... #} for a lot of things.

I guess so. I don't really know what this means. And that's okay. I don't have 
to understand all of these functions. I can use lilypond at my level, and 
others can use it at theirs.
> 
> LilyPond is gaining wings.  Nobody forces you to flap them: sitting
> stationary remains quite a valid option.  You are feeling left out; but
> the truth is that you can also just hitch a ride wherever other people
> are taking her.

My main issue is that when I don't understand how to do something, while there 
might be a way to do it that I could understand, because the "power users" are 
the ones that more often than not respond, I'm left with an answer that my 
solve my immediate problem, but in a way that I don't understand, and can't 
adapt to future problems. Unfortunately, there's no real solution to the 
problem other than saying, "and please limit the amount of scheme in an answer, 
because I don't understand it".
I re-read the learning manual when a major stable version is released, just to 
become familiar with any major changes. I know how to search the notation 
reference for the contexts or engravers I might want to modify, and what 
modifications I can make to them, because these kinds of changes are very 
clearly explained in the learning manual. The scheme tweaks, however, require a 
background knowledge that I just don't have, and really have no desire to gain.
Again, I'm perfectly fine with people being able to do the things in scheme 
that they can do, and I'll muddle along with the little bit of programming I've 
learned from the learning manual. My point, however, is that this list is 
becoming increasingly a place for "power" users to exchange "power" examples, 
and me and my little \override and \set and \revert and all but forgotten.