Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes: > Hi David, > >> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond. > > Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this > list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable > for Lilypond. > > In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this: > 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never* > have to see Lilypond “code”);
According to the advertising, that's Denemo. > or 2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output > (so that users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use > Lilypond for output only). "LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports without buying us a community interested in working with and on LilyPond. It's probably somewhat tantamount to those maintaining Ghostscript, by now a probably somewhat frustrating task. MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something needed for a variety of reasons. If it's needed for note input on a continuing basis, we should ask ourselves how we can encourage existing input tools or editors to do better. Of course, a robust input of material that _has_ already been input previously is still independently useful. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
