[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 05:07:39 -0700

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

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

(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.
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 :)


reply via email to

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