[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: NR 2.1 Vocal music

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: NR 2.1 Vocal music
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 00:15:18 +0100

Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:14 PM

On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 09:15:26AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:

Graham Percival wrote Friday, August 27, 2010 9:54 PM

>- do you absolutely need to use an @example rather than >@lilypond
>the page-separator-markup ?
>That said, we really try to avoid repeating information that's
>elsewhere.  Unfortunately, the current doc page about
>page-separator-markup is rather un-optimal.
>If this were GDP, I'd run off and fix this by making a separate
>section right away, but for now I'll simply state it as a >problem.

For now I've added an @lilypond, the smallest I
could devise that was realistic.  Is this OK?
(Note it overwrites the \paper block)

Hmm... I'm not certain about the paper-size and indent.
Particularly about the 'landscape bit.

That said, I'm not certain that we *don't* want that stuff,
either -- I haven't (yet) checked to see how it looks if you
remove it.  The current example extends beyond the (normal)
right-hand margin, though, so I'm not wild about it.

Oh, and I don't like the \book, either.

Happy to remove paper size and landscape, and book,
but I'd like to keep indent 0 to show the separator
in a more realistic context.  Incidently, I simply copied
all these from the existing example in 4.1.2 Other
layout variables, and then elaborated it a bit.

What about:

\score {
   c4 c c c
   c4 c c c
 \paper {
   system-separator-markup = \slashSeparator

Is that example missing anything important?

Well, that's pretty well the example that is already
shown in 4.1.2 Other layout variables, so I assumed
you wanted something better as you thought "the current
doc page about page-separator-markup is rather

I suppose it might be
nice to add a StaffGroup in there rarther than only having a
single staff... but I think this gets to the heart of the matter.

Definitely better with a staff group of some sort.
You'd never use a system separator with a single staff.

NB: I'm thinking of a general NR 1.6.1 section here (see below),
rather than specifically a choral one; that explains the
difference between the ChoirStaff approach and my single-staff

I definitely think that
 c4 c c c
is easier to understand than
 \repeat unfold 8 { c4 }

Sure, again I just copied this from the existing

System separators are only useful in multi-staff
documents, essentially full orchestral or choral
scores, so maybe it shouldn't have a section in
the main text.

NR 1.6 Staff notation?

I mean, system separators are pretty much on par with StaffGroup
-- it's something you add to a (large) score to improve
readability.  I'd totally go for a 1.6.1 Separating staves, to
come at the end fo the current 1.6.1.

OK, I will move it there.

>- can't you do \layout { \context { \dynamicsUp }} ?  After
>\dynamicsUp, it feels really weird to see the arcane \override
>in there.

No, it seems predefs are not permitted in \context

Oh yes, another of our bugs that IIRC doesn't have an issue
number.  Could you report it to the Bug Squad, or add it to the
tracker yourself?  (after checking that I Did Recall Correctly,
and that it really isn't in the tracker)

Will do

- Graham


reply via email to

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