Hi all,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...] it is hard to find Florian at fault for since he is working with
the terminology employed by LilyPond.
luis jure wrote:
[...] the inconsistent use of the terms "note" and "pitch" in
florian's presentation (which, as you said, was just the consequence of
using lilypond's terminology, not florian's fault, of course).
So now that we have - to my relief - established that I'm not to blame for
anything :) may I suggest the following:
Although I am tempted to leave things as they are (to get new Lilyponders
used to the note/pitch inconsistency as early as possible), I have changed
the "pitches" on page 20 of my slides to "notes".
Reasoning:
* Let's at least be consistent within this single document
* However, I'm too lazy re-do the figure on page 13
* So "notes" it is :)
I have updated the archive with the slides and examples at
http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2013/download/lilypond_lac2013.tgz
As important as these terminology discussions are for the continued
development of Lilypond, I think it is worth reminding ourselves that
during the actual workshop, this did not seem to cause any confusion
whatsoever.
So is the idea to simply include a link to the above .tgz archive at
http://lilypond.org/publications , or would it be preferable to host a
copy on lilypond.org itself? And who would be in charge of either process?