>> Over the years, I've become extremely wary of syntactic sugar: it
>> adds an extra barrier to usage/development because everyone not
>> only has to learn Scheme, they also have to learn the (lilypond
>> specific) idioms involved.
>
> I'm curious you say that, since my experience is precisely the
> opposite: I've had far better results "selling" Lilypond to people
> using syntactic sugar than basically anything else I can
> identify. The people I’ve "converted" all want to be able to type
> things like
>
> \reverseMusic \foo
>
> rather than learning how to write the equivalent function in
> Scheme. In other words, syntactic sugar keeps them from learning
> Scheme as opposed to having to learn it.
>
> Am I missing something? Is my experience unique?
No, your experience is not unique. I think that developers and normal
users (but probably not Scheme wizards) have rather diametral views on
this topic.
Werner
