Graham, you wrote Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:41 AM
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:59:43 +0100
"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:
Graham, you wrote Friday, October 10, 2008 7:38 PM
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:08:00 +0100
> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Err, why midi? It doesn't help anything for the docs, and as
> you've just said, it's not intended to teach anything.
TIMS - this is music, stupid, you know, stuff you
_listen_ to ;)
Not the MIDI version of string sounds, you don't. :)
Strings are so expressive they can never be properly
synthesized. I grant you that.
Seriously, there's no reason to build the .midi files in
Documentation/user/out-www/. I can appreciate that you wanted to
hear how it sounded, but there's still no point in keeping the
\midi{} in the file. OK, it only adds half a second to the build
process... but who's going to go hunting around for that .midi
files? I mean, how many people *who build the docs* are going to
want to hear it badly enough to dig out that file?
I wasn't thinking of people who build the docs; rather
people who read them. LilyPond produces printed output
and MIDI output. The inspirational headwords are supposed
to show off what Lily can do. If they include the MIDI
commands all the reader has to do is copy and paste the score and they
can both see and hear them. The headwords
are the only scores in the whole of the documentation which
are fully self-contained. OK, they're only short extracts, but
nevertheless they are a complete Lily score. Come to
think of it, they do serve as a useful teaching aid just because of
that. And as they are complete they should include \midi{} to
demonstrate that part of Lily's output.
But I'm not going to die in the ditch defending this - it
just seemed the right thing to do.
Cheers,
- Graham
Trevor