[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
> 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.
- Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review, Valentin Villenave, 2008/10/02
- Re: Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review, Graham Percival, 2008/10/05
- Re: Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review, Valentin Villenave, 2008/10/05
- Re: Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review, fiëé visuëlle, 2008/10/05
- Re: Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review, Graham Percival, 2008/10/06
- Re: Notation Reference 1.8 "Text" : ready for review, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/10/06