Re: Discussion: automatic engraving and single-source publishing

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> 2013/11/26 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:

>> But if we are talking about a hundred tweaks per page, it is
>> extremely unlikely that those tweaks are _not_ dealing with
>> systematic problems, and dealing with systematic problems is
>> something that the computer does with a lot less effort and boredom
>> and tie-in than a human in the long run.
>
> Yes, i definitely agree!  But i also agree with Joe wheh he says:
>
> 2013/11/26 Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden>:
>> A growing user base corresponds to a much broader range of engraving
>> scenarios and hence feedback that helps drive automation.
>
> Case in point: exactly _because_ i had used \shape to tweak over a
> 1000 slurs, i was able to see how to best improve it, and now we'll
> have the ability to use polar coordinates in \shape.
> Which is a step towards robustness and automation (for example, one
> \shape with polar coordinates can often fix multiple slurs).

Aren't you confusing "automation" with "more comfortable manual tools"
here?

> Bottom line: after \shaping 1000 slurs, i got really bored and
> improved \shape.  After using it for the next 500 slurs, i expect to
> get really bored again and fix some issues in slur formatting that
> will bother me the most - because i'll be _personally motivated_ to do
> so.  Repeat ad infinitum :-)

I haven't been doing any actual typesetting for years, so that approach
does not work all that much for me.

My usual creative process involves explaining to people how to do
something with LilyPond and becoming so grossly embarrassed that
I change LilyPond rather than having to repeat that explanation.

Of course, this works better for frontend work which is indeed where
I spend most of my energy.  So that gets me to the point where people
and LilyPond understand each other.

-- 
David Kastrup