Re: Standard LilyPond score structure (Was: How do new users feel about LilyPond's documentation?)

[Gilles]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:39:25 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:19:08AM +0200, Gilles wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:53:42 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> [...]
> > >So, to output a simple 16-bar lead sheet, a user should always [be
> > >forced to] create 3 files (voice.ily, chords.ily, score.ly)? Or 
> > maybe
> > >four (lyrics.ily)? Or more?
> > >Because a “one-per-instrument” file structure — or something 
> > equally
> > >segmented in some other way — is likely necessary (or at least
> > >desirable enough to be chosen as the standard) for a huge project
> > >like an opera.
> >
> > Yes! :-)
> > But once there is a standard, many tools will blossom, in particular
> > one that would offer "simple layout" and transparently transform 
> > into
> > "standard layout"...
> >
> > Or more probably a user that is too lazy to set up one directory
> > (rather than one file) for a given project is likely to use a GUI in
> > the first place and will never ever see the multi-file standard
> > layout.
> [..]
>
> I beg to differ. I do not use a GUI (and never will, for lilypond), 
> yet
> I have found (so far) that I prefer the single-file approach. At 
> least,
> I've found it quite manageable so far for single-movement pieces.
>
> [...]

Of course, if you are used to it, nobody forces you to change.
The suggestion was certainly that LilyPond should forbid all input
other than the "standard" ("best practice") layout.

[Yet I want to stress that what you seem to describe is exactly what
a LilyPond GUI would do; I mean that the GUI designer has chosen a
structure (like you did) so that the code knows where to fetch and
to put things.  You do it "manually".]

Everything in one file is not a solution that can scale (e.g. for
large, possibly distributed, encoding projects).


Best regards,
Gilles