Hi Stan,
Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing
Lilypond's "grammar?"
I agree:
1. By using "poor Lilypond grammar", I can write an .ly file which
compiles and outputs a "valid" score of Beethoven 9, but is
essentially unreadable (as an input file) by any human, including
well-trained Lily users.
2. I could also use "good Lilypond grammar", and produce an .ly file
*also* compiles and outputs a "valid" score of Beethoven 9 --
visually indistinguishable from the other version -- and yet is (much
more easily) readable than the previous .ly file, and thus is more
effective at communicating Lilypond-ness.
I think we should all be striving for #2. =)
Best regards,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
