Hello,
On 02/11/2010 23:20, Trevor Daniels wrote:
I wonder if affinity/nonaffinity are optimal.
Are they better than relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff?
To who? programmers or most other people who use LilyPond in general
(i.e. me?).
So here I am, just done my first 'mary had a little lamb' score (with
Dynamics and chords and EVERYTHING!), dead chuffer with myself but I can
see that the lines need some adjustment nothing in the Learning Manual,
because it's a bit more advanced so I go to the Notation Reference on
how to do that and I see this (and staff-staff or staffgroup-staff). You
might as well call them 'bingy-bongy-boo' for the meaning that
nonaffinity has.
?
Unless we really explain this properly in the docs what this term
actually means, it really does put a lot of people off (i.e. me).
I seem to recall that Valentin was struggling to get people to use
'include \italian.ly' (or whatever it was), this is not going to do us
any favours.
I'd like to propose some of my own terms (so as to not be seen to be
*just* complaining) but I still don't really understand what the
constraints are here and why it matters if we use noun-adjective-noun or
noun-noun-verb or whatever we are trying to do here.
Yours (a regular non-developy person trying to be constructive)
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
