On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:18:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
>
> > I'm reluctant to add the suggestion of \relative f' { to the
> > tutorial since all the examples are variants of c.
>
> Personally, I don't think \relative f' is all that interesting. The
> really idiomatic phrase is \relative f without octave indicators.
oh, ok.
> quotes @code{''} and not one double quote @code{"}@tie{}!
> @c " - keeps quotes in order for context-sensitive editor -td
>
> +If you carefully consider all the rules above and remember that the
> +octave of absolute pitches also is specified disregarding any
> +accidentals, one rather interesting consequence is that the first note
> +in @code{@w{\relative f}} music is interpreted just the same as in
> +absolute pitch mode.
> +
> @subheading Durations (rhythms)
Sounds great for notation/pitches.itely. Feel free to push it to
pitches.itely directly. But this is *not* appropriate for the
tutorial. I will be very unhappy if you put it there.
When users are still coming to grips with two single quotes '' vs
a double quote ", they're not going to be carefully considering
the specifications of disregarding interesting consequences
carefully.
> and I don't see the point in hiding this information from beginners out
> of fear that they might like it.
Trust me. The tutorial should keep words to 3 syllables or less
if at all possible.
Besides, we already get enough crap for having a tutorial that's
"too complicated" (see recent emails on -user). There's an art to
documentation, and a lot of that art is in removing anything that
doesn't need to be there. The tutorial is already 18 pages.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
