>>>>> "ES" == Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ES> On Monday 25 July 2005 17.47, Laura Conrad wrote: >> >>>>> "ES" == Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ES> \addlyrics (2.0) is converted to \oldaddlyrics, which is ES> strongly deprecated, and pretty unsupported. It is known that ES> it sometimes doesn't work. >> >> This seems like a bad decision to me, for a number of reasons: >> >> One of the ways old users learn to use new features is to run >> convert-ly on their old source. If convert-ly creates bad >> lilypond, it makes learning to use the new features difficult. >> >> It means that nobody will upgrade lilypond who is working on a >> large vocal music project. Therefore, the newer versions of >> lilypond will get less testing on such projects. ES> Yes, this is a known problem which we have discussed earlier. Which "we" is that? I really think I'd remember a discussion of convert-ly not converting lyrics any more if it had happened on either lilypond-user or lilypond-devel. ES> There is a trade-off between spending lots of time on ES> maintaining old deprecated code, and forcing old users to do ES> manual work. Another branch of the tradeoff might be to not deprecate so much old code. ES> There is no good automated way to convert from \oldaddlyrics ES> to \lyricsto, so I'm afraid you'll have to fix it manually. >> >> I'm willing to believe there is no automated way to convert every >> possible \addlyrics to an equivalent \lyricsto. I don't believe that >> the most common cases couldn't be handled. For example, two verses, >> with a chorus appended to the first verse, as in the example I >> submitted. ES> The main problems are: ES> - Two verses now require two separate Lyrics contexts. - ES> Convert-ly is regexp-driven. If you can figure out a nice way ES> to express a ES> partial \addlyrics -> \lyricsto conversion ES> rule with regular expressions, ES> this would be very ES> welcome. I was building lilyond at the end of the 2.5-2.6 development cycle, and was able to contribute code in a small way. Since then, the dependencies have changed so that my system no longer builds lilypond in either the 2.6 branch or the 2.7 branch. Since Serpent Publications (me) has decided that the costs outweigh the benefits of converting to 2.6 (see <http://www.laymusic.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/2005/07/21#050721-lilypond> for the rationale behind this decision), I really can't justify spending time figuring out (again) how to get a build environment for a program I'm not going to really be using. Does anyone know how much lilypond out there is orphaned? Between the fact that old versions of lilypond don't run on modern machines and the fact that there's a lot of lilypond that convert-ly doesn't handle, there must be a lot of stuff that nobody can compile without major manual labor. At what point is this volume of stuff going to feed into design decisions? Surely the lilypond developers want people to be able to transcribe something and still be able to use it a year or even 10 years from now? -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (501) 641-5011 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user