[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lilypond programming manual

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: lilypond programming manual
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:14:46 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 06:53:26PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 9/27/09 11:55 AM, "John Mandereau" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 17:37 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > Certainly.  However, when we decide time has come to significantly
> > expand this appendix and it gets too big to remain an appendix, we'll
> > have to reword the reading guidelines so the reader doesn't feel he
> > should even read this chapter, e.g. by recommending that "all this
> > manual should be read from cover to cover, except the last chapter
> > "Scheme tutorial", that can be read later to make better use of Chapters
> > 5 and 6 of the Notation Reference, for example."
> I think that my preference would actually to create a LilyPond Programming
> manual, with the Scheme Tutorial and a rewritten NR6.  I don't think that
> NR6 is actually Notation Reference.  That particular chapter has seemed to
> me to be out of place anyway.

I like this idea; we could even make the IR into a series of
appendices for this programming manual.

The immediate question is whether we should bother doing it now.
I'm not talking about actually writing it -- we definitely can't
do anything other than moving doc sections around and slightly
changing the IR generation from scheme.  So
1) do we set everything up, and have a half-baked manual?
(which is admittedly still no less useful than the current

2) do we keep the status quo, and deal with the moving files
around later?

My preference is for #1; I've been dealing with build issues for
the past few weeks, so it's relatively fresh in my mind.  Also, it
gives everybody (especially translators) a more stable foundation.

- Graham

reply via email to

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