Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

[Hans Aberg]

On 16 Aug 2005, at 10:03, Mats Bengtsson wrote:

> > I figure so. But I do not know the worth of the effort of  
> > pursuing  it. One can perhaps draw a parallel to the TeX macro  
> > package LaTeX,  which in its original form was too rigid for  
> > general use, and too  difficult to reprogram; therefore, in part  
> > for such reasons, the  LaTeX3 project was created.
>
> I would rather view LaTeX as a great success and I have to admit I
> haven't seen any useful output of the LaTeX3 project, but that's off
> topic.

I think it might have some relevance in the context of making  
LilyPond more easily accessible. The original LaTeX wasn't used by  
mathematicians, for example. As for LaTeX3, the development team only  
came to LaTeX2 :-), which solved many of the problems or original  
LaTeX. When LaTeX3 started to come up for development, another  
question started to become more important, namely finding a suitable  
TeX successor.

LilyPond is more specific in focus, but might undergo similar  
developments. First, implementation efforts to make things work,  
combined with a series of packages, making it easier to use. Finally,  
that experience may result in a LilyPond successor (which might be  
named LilyPond, if the development team is still around).

So now, you know what will happen with LilyPond the next ten years. :-)

  Hans Aberg