Re: Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:44:27 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2008/10/3 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> 
> > Also consider whether you should use "system" instead of "line".
> 
> Well, in this particular case the use of "line" was implied by "line
> break". I could change this into "system break", but now we don't want
> users to think we'll cause a system failure on their computer, do we?

Well, I didn't say that you had to *change* it.  Just that you
should *consider* it.  You've considered it now, so that's ok.  :)

> > - Separate text: kill the "word processor" thing.  At most, you
> >  could say that you were using LilyPond as a text typesetter.
> 
> We've already had that argument one year ago. Back then, I went to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor

The definitive source of all knowledge and wisdom, of course.

> and found that LilyPond
> hardly lacks anything you can expect from a non-WYSIWYG word
> processor. (Besides, I definitely regard this as a killer-feature.)

Do you honestly consider LaTeX to be a "word processor"?  IMO that
would be stupid.  And the best you can say about lilypond's text
typesetting is that it has an extremely subset of latex's power.

Calling lilypond a "non-WYSIWYG, small-featured, word processor"
is deceptive.  If you call it a typesetter, there's no confusion
-- people who know a lot about this area will know what you mean,
and people who don't know what that means would be confused by
"word processor" anyway.


> > Also, what do you mean by "using a specific syntax"? (same
> > paragraph)
> 
> \markuplines syntax. The next sentence precisely explains what I mean:
> "This syntax is described in Multi-page markup. "

No it doesn't "precisely explain".  The word "this" refers back to
"a specific syntax", which doesn't tell the reader anything.  I
mean, what's a non-specific syntax?

{
  \writeSomeNote \addSomeArticulations
  \quoteARandomInstrument \RestABit
  \putCoolSoloHere
}
?!

(ok, now I actually want to write a piece like that.  This is the
first time I've ever been tempted to write a Cage-like piece.  :)

> > What does \markuplines do?  If it's not obvious (ie not \slurUp),
> > we need an example in the main text.
> 
> Do you mean an @example? The same @example you explicitly forbid? :-)

I said "an example", not "an @example".

> I was tempted to have a markuplines @lilypond block here, but I
> couldn't figure out how to print a multi-page snippet image.

That can be forced by playing with the \paper or [linewidth]
commands.  See spacing.itely for some examples.

That said, I don't think you need a multi-page example here.  Just
dump the example currently in "Multi-page markup" in here.


> OK.
> 
> OK.
> 
> OK.
> 
> OK.
> 
> OK.
> 
> OK.
> 
> OK.
> 
> OK.

You don't need to quote stuff that you've done.  I know that I'm
right.  I really don't need the ego boost of having you tell me.  :)


> > _New dynamic marks_ and _Manual repeat marks_.: no punctuation
> > after the first @ref{}.  Remember that we can't do that.
> 
> ?? There are commas. Look twice.

No, you maoing look twice.
@noindent
Some of these font families, used for specific items
such as numbers or dynamics, do not provide all
characters, as mentioned in @ref{New dynamic marks} and
@ref{Manual repeat marks}.

Where's this magical comma after the first @ref{} ?!


> > @predef: missing \smaller and \larger.
> 
> Indeed. One of these days, someone will have to tell me why the frak
> we have been keeping both \larger and \bigger, that do exactly the
> same. I'd vote for removing \bigger before 2.12.

I'd actually rather kill \larger.  \smaller \bigger sounds better
than \smaller \larger.

> > That's as far as I got before I got bored.
> 
> Nice way of admitting you couldn't find anything else since everything
> was perfect from there :)

Uh-huh.