Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 01, 2012 12:11 PM
>
>> I agree; it's a mess.  Let's examine David's most hated example:
>>
>> \version "2.15.0"
>> {
>>  \tempo 4 = 60
>>  c1 c
>>  \tempo 4. = 60 ~ 72
>>  c1 c
>>  \tempo "Andante"
>>  c1 c
>>  \tempo "Allegro" 4 = 120
>>  c1 c
>>  \tempo "Allegro" 4 = 120 ~ 144
>>  c1 c
>>  \tempo \markup{ Presto } 4. = 172 ~ 188
>>  c1 c
>> }
>
> While this might be a mess for the parser to sort out it is perfectly
> understandable for a musician trying to write his/her music.
>
> In this discussion we must always consider what it is we are
> trying to optimise: something easy for a parser or easy for a
> musician?

The mechanics are important, but if you don't think about technical
implications, you can end up with things like

     \relative \ff a

where it's not clear whether the relative will affect \ff or a.

> I'm not saying this must be left unchanged, but if it
> is replaced the replacement must be as acceptable to a musician,
> otherwise we're going backwards.

I think "a musician" is red herring word. There are many people that
think that Lily is too complex for "musicians" already, and many
others (including me) that think that musicians are smart people and
can learn rules, especially if they are simple and consistent.

--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen