[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: fact checking for manual

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: fact checking for manual
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:27:01 -0700

On 30-Oct-04, at 3:16 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

address@hidden writes:
4.7: talks about lilypond-latex and using the "old" wrapper that uses
latex, unlike current LilyPond.  Is that info correct, or should it be
commented out until 3.0 arrives?  (I've changed "3.0" to "2.4" in the
text, but otherwise left it alone)

the wrapper is the old script that setup a small latex
include file to handle titling. Now LilyPond takes care of titling, so
it doesn't need the wrapper script.

So (once I fix the 3.0 -> 2.4 bit) this is correct?

Before LilyPond 3.0, the lilypond program only generated music notation. Titles and page layout was done in a separate wrapper program. For compatibility with older files, this wrapper program has been retained as lilypond-latex. It uses the LilyPond program and LaTeX to create a nicely titled piece of sheet music. Use of this program is only necessary if the input file contains special LaTeX options or formatting codes in markup texts.

I know that you were planning on removing TeX dependency, but that got pushed back to post-2.4, so I'm confused. If that paragraph is correct, then everything's fine. :)

7.5.8: I've tried to clarify the different ways of setting papersize,
but I'm not certain that I understand how \layout works.  Is the new
doc correct?   (you'll need to make web to see these changes)

No, it should be

ok, fixed.

> 9.7: do these recommended filename extensions look ok?

Can you give some context?

About what filename extensions are / how to use them?  ok, fixed.

- Graham

reply via email to

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