Re: OLL

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

I’m mostly with Damian here – I’m excited by your (Urs’ et al.) work, and I 
always wanted to look at least into the notation fonts, but will probably never 
need any of the more sophisticated functions.

My personal needs seldom go further than song and choir sheets, and so far I 
rarely got customers asking for musical typesetting (and if, they can’t pay my 
time).

But I feel OLL is an important contribution to LilyPond and it would be a big 
loss to leave it behind. Unfortunately I don’t see anything I could help with.
It would be an interesting challenge for me to port the LaTeX parts to ConTeXt, 
but while the number of OLL users is in the single-digit range, as well as the 
intersection of LilyPond and ConTeXt users, it doesn’t make any sense.

Hraban


> Am 10.10.2020 um 16:07 schrieb Damian leGassick <damianlegassick@mac.com>:
> 
> OLL is something that I have occasionally looked into, and something that I 
> am reassured to know is there: it is something that I hoped to use more in 
> the future. I do use notation-fonts. I have not used ScholarLy, 
> Edition-engraver and Analysis so far on occasions when, in hindsight, it 
> would have been useful simply because of the sketchy documentation. That is, 
> I found it quicker to use LaTex and graphics to get the job done. I doubt I’m 
> the only one.
> 
> The thought of OLL disappearing does sadden me going forward. I am not a 
> scheme/C programmer but I would be happy to help by fully and finally getting 
> to grips with OLL and working on use-cases or documentation.
> 
> Damian