2013/11/26 Urs Liska <m...@ursliska.de>: > When finishing a LilyPond score to publication quality there is quite a lot > of tweaking involved - as you can see from Janek's recent posts on > lilypondblog.org. And this tweaking makes the engraving very specific, > actually it's only valid for a specific page layout and even a specific > LilyPond version.
Fortunately my recent improvements to \shape (in particular polar coordinates) should make slur tweaks much less specific. 2013/11/26 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Of course, that is sobering: if it takes more time to get from > LilyPond's 95% initial typesetting quality to the 99% quality one wants > for publishing than it takes for some WYSIWYG's initial 80%, then we > have a problem. I'd say that the effort is similar in both cases. This is generally what i had in mind when i wrote this post: http://lilypondblog.org/2013/08/is-lilypond-good-enough-followup-with-graphs/ > For that reason, I consider much of the time spent on tweaking > and tweaking tools a waste of lifetime better spent on trying to get the > automatisms right. Of course, that option is harder and requires > different resources. But it only needs to be done once. Well, the most important problem is that usually you have a deadline for finishing a project, and improving LilyPond takes two or more orders of magnitude longer than tweaking - even _if you have_ the skills necessary for improving LilyPond... Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
