[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Another documentation issue

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Another documentation issue
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:05:57 -0500

Currently Metronome Marks is section number 8.3.1>

Yes, but I am looking at the documentation currently online. It is just an example, I not trying to point out a problem that you have already solved

Do you have any specific examples of un-lean format?>

I am quoting from the documentation. I can't defend words that are not my own. 'lean' should be clear from the context. I am suggesting that developers use some of the prefatory comments in the documentation as programming guidelines. But is really is up to the individual programmer to determine what that means or what impact if any that has on his programming style.

I see individual cases where I question whether the goal of keeping Lilypond lean is being kept in mind. Lean means to me don't give the user more than one way to do the same thing for instance. If there is something wrong with the way a user has to do something, just change it, instead of adding to it. Isn't this why Lilypond is not backward compatible? to avoid allowing the code getting bloated?

I am really only suggesting that not all developers are coding with the exact same philosophy in mind and that that is not good for Lilypond in general.

I hope no one takes this as a critisicm. There are a lot of coding styles and philosophies, but when I went to college for computer programming, I was told that if I join a project in mid-stream, I should try to adopt the coding style of the program already established. So I am thinking that the Introduction in the documentation might contain some hints on the coding style and philosophy of the original writers of the documentation and program. Hints that might still be valid today, although I am not sure about that, Lilypond is changing and perhaps there is a conscious choice to change the philosophy.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
To: "Stephen" <address@hidden>
Cc: "lily-devel" <address@hidden>; "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Another documentation issue

On 19-May-05, at 7:48 AM, Stephen wrote:
For instance, in 5.7.4 Metronome marks, 'See also' points to MetronomeChangeEvent. Why not replace that with MetronomeMark? In the MetronomeChangeEvent page, I click on Metronome_mark_engraver and from there MetronomeMark.

Currently Metronome Marks is section number 8.3.1, and it contains MetronomeChangeEvent and MetronomeMark. I'm proposing that we eliminate the MetronomeChangeEvent and leave the MetornomeMark.

We write a program capable of producing sheet music, and adjust the format to be as lean as possible. When the format can no longer be trimmed down, by definition we are left with content itself. Our program serves as a formal definition of a music document.>

I wonder if all the developers are still on board with the goal of keeping the format 'as lean as possible'?

Sorry, I'm lost. Do you have any specific examples of un-lean format? Or of any of
your complaints?

I suppose that the leanest-possible format would look like bad perl code -- after all, why write "\new Staff" when we could use "&@" instead. So I'd say that we try to
be lean yet still understandable.  :)

- Graham

reply via email to

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