Martin Tarenskeen <m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl> writes: > ... writing LilyPond code directly is in fact easier and much faster > than ... fixing errors.
Especially this. Most of the export and import processes end up with some errors, and being forced to find and solve machine-made errors (maybe obscure ones) is not easy if you're not used to Lilypond in the first place. It can be hard to get Lilypond to do a perfect job with (for example) a long and complicated opera or symphony. But to get Lilypond to do a good job on some fairly simple music is almost certainly easier than learning how to fix export/import problems. You don't need to read the entire documentation before you begin. It's laid out so that if you want to do something simple, your problems will mostly be solved after reading only part way - you can save the rest of the studying for later, if you end up needing it. And as you get used to the manual, you become more comfortable with knowing where "whatever thing you need today" can probably be found. Also, about the documentation - the "Snippets" section will often have a pre-made solution to your problem. (When someone has a hard time figuring out how to do something in Lilypond, and then they get it right, they put it up as a snippet so that everyone else can just use that, instead of wasting their time discovering the solution over again.) If you want to do something that's musically fairly normal, and it seems to be turning out a bit more difficult than it should, then it's possible that someone else has already run into the same problem, solved it, and created a snippet out of it. -- David R _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user