Re: Combining \tag with \quoteDuring does not work

[David Kastrup]

Kaj Persson <address@hidden> writes:

> David,
>>
>> Since I already explained this in detail in the first reply, it seems
>> like a total waste of effort when you express your complete surprise
>> that things work the way I already explained in the first reply.  Or
>> actually, that the _result_ is the way I explained it.  Because "I
>> thought, that tags always change the source, but obviously I was
>> wrong."  rather suggests that you did not actually consider thinking
>> about the explanation.
>>
>> Particularly in the light of that, you should aim to provide smaller
>> examples in future as your mode of learning seems to be focused
>> _completely_ on looking at examples _without_ considering explanations.
>> So since the dissemination of an example is _mandatory_ for your
>> learning, you really should aim to make at least this step as painless
>> as possible for helpers.
>>
> Of course you are right. In your eyes I am a stupid person who does
> not understand simple relations and explanations.

I might have expressed myself poorly.  In my eyes I wasted time with an
approach that wasn't helping you.  The approach actually able to help
you consisted on working through your example.  One reason that I did
not choose this approach right away but tried with non-example
explanations was that your example was way too complex to explain things
with unless one broke it down into elements suitable for explanation.

Most people aren't fans of wasting their time, so I told you that in the
light of you being someone who benefits significantly from having things
explained by example (most people do, though to somewhat different
degree), you'd do quite better if you made this as easy to do as
possible.

That you different than I do is no value judgment.  Invariably when
people ask how to learn C++, the answer is some "C++ made easy" book
with 1500 pages consisting of handwavy explanations and examples.
This kind of book is totally annoying to me in how it forces me to sift
through lots of irrelevancies to get at the actual information, often
forcing me to deduce it.  I prefer just reading the standard definitions
(or rather, the last public draft standard).  Still bulky enough, but
without all that noise.

I am well aware that very few people do _that_, and that the market for
books written like that is very small.

That doesn't mean that I consider everybody benefitting from more
example-heavy information than I prefer it "stupid": most of the people
ending up doing the heavy lifting are in that category and are much more
likely than myself to deliver a continuous stream of solid work without
getting sidestepped or procrastinating while getting on everybody's
nerves.

> I can also tell, that I have followed your advice from your first
> answer about variable. It was a fruitful solution and much better than
> quoting (this time).

Quoting really is rather limited in its usefulness.  The main feature it
has over music variables is extracting the correct time of a quote from
a longer passage automatically.  That is its principal value.  If you
don't particularly need _that_ or if it even gets in your way because
your referencing music expression is given different timing (like when
removing passages), you tend to be better off with music variables.
Quotes can only work with a single voice and are _tied_ in their timing.
This can often get in the way when using them outside of orchestral
contexts.

-- 
David Kastrup