Higher-level score handling needed? (was: Do we really offer the future?)

[Jacques Menu]

Hello folks,

Some remarks for what they're worth...

JM

--

LP is basically staff oriented, and we specify a linear sequence of notes and 
the like for each staff.

The reactions on the « Do we really offer the future? » thread as well as many 
questions that arose recently on this list show a need for a higher-level way 
of dealing with scores, that could allow in particular for:
        - better repeat/alternative handling;
        - handling bars globally in a cross-staff way;
        - vertical staff and system spacing issues;
        - better handling of end of lines, in particular regarding bar/repeat 
signs and marks.

This would mean building a representation of the « architecture » of the score 
as internal data by the tool. It’s my understanding that that’s what Denemo is 
doing.

Or maybe the user should start from the global architecture of the score 
(number of systems, staves and bars, where the repeats/alternatives occur and 
for how many times, where vertical spacing should be augmented, …) and then « 
populate » the resulting « canevas ». This is analogous to the relational 
database world, in which you first specify the structure and then supply the 
contents.

I don’t think a much faster version of LP, thru parallelism say, will exist 
soon. The approach I’m thinking of could help have a number of instances of LP 
produce the view for individual staves in parallel while the user is 
interactively populating them.

Wether LP can evolve toward this need or some other tool using it behind the 
scenes is a better approach would have to be seen, of course.

HTH!