Re: Options for using LilyPond in an Android app

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> On 31/07/16 14:02, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On 31/07/16 12:46, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Bearing in mind I live on the edge of London (the largest city in the
>>>>> world?)
>>>>
>>>> Well, if "the world" is just the Commonwealth and we skip over India,
>>>> Pakistan, and Nigeria (after all, an urban administration not able to
>>>> recognize the Queen as head of state is suitable for a hamlet rather
>>>> than a city, even if some of them play a mean Cricket).
>>>>
>>>> <URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_cities#List>.
>>>>
>>> Well, I believe that according to certain criteria, Kansas is the
>>> largest city in the world ... :-)
>> 
>> I would have imagined that any criteria for "largest city in the world"
>> would include "has to be a city".  Without that restriction, I would
>> imagine Asia to be a bigger city than Kansas.
>
> Well, I thought Kansas WAS a city.

Well, there may be a few minuscule towns named "Kansas", but the
"proper" Kansas is a state.  You were probably thinking of Kansas City.

> And the city boundaries are well big - although most of it is land
> earmarked for development, and is actually pretty rural - not even
> suburbs.

Uh, what?

>>> But it looks like my general knowledge may be a little out of date -
>>> I don't think the population of London has changed (much) over my
>>> lifetime, but I suspect my figures date from when the population of
>>> India was closer to 400K than its current figure ... :-)
>> 
>> India.  400K.  That would likely have been a few millennia before
>> Christ, in the early stages of the Indus civilization.
>> 
>> I hope you are exaggerating your age.
>> 
> Whoops. I meant, of course, 400M :-)

Ah, so you were thinking about the 1950s.  Of course, London was still
smaller than Shanghai even then.

-- 
David Kastrup