lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: My quick rundown of how to use OpenLilyLib's Edition Engraver


From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: My quick rundown of how to use OpenLilyLib's Edition Engraver
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:35:57 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2



Am 30.01.2018 um 18:19 schrieb Graham King:
On 29 Jan 2018, at 20:36, Stefano Troncaro wrote:

Hello again everyone!

In a recent thread I was asked to write a little bit depicting how I would have liked to 
learn about using the Edition Engraver. I share it here so that others can give their 
insights. Hopefully we can make a "quick start guide" kind of thing to help 
future users.
<snip>

Thank you Stefano; this is really helpful.

Would anyone care to comment about the relative advantages (and most 
appropriate use cases) of:
- Edition Engraver

* separate tweaks (or optional contents (like marks, dynamics, but no notes)) from the content
  => keep the content file simple
* store *sets of tweaks* for different targets (stressing this is what I miss most in Stefano's text)   => Have different tweaks for score/part, a4/tablet, manuscript/original edition or for transposed/concert pitch
* All this without touching the content files - differently from tags

- lilypond tags, and

I can't really comment on them because I never liked them.
Opposite from the edition-engraver they clutter the content files with their hard-coded switches. *But*: depending on the use case this can also be an advantage as the information is robustly encoded in the main file. With the edition-engraver you might actually lose them one day, or the tool doesn't work anymore, who knows.

- git version control branches?

This is something completely different. You generally use them to encapsulate work in independent *sessions*, so you (or you and someone else) can cleanly work on different parts/tasks at the same time and still create a clean history. You should usually not use branches for different versions of something because that tends to become a maintenance nightmare. That said, you *can* have (for example) a "core" and a "beautified" branch with the "beautified" branch running in parallel to the core content. But I wouldn't actually do that.

HTH
Urs

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]