Hi, Geoff:
I'm of two minds about this. Consistency does have strong advantages,
but when there are various ways to do the same thing, it can help to
see examples of all so that I can choose the one most appropriate for
what I want to do.
Agreed!
However, the particular example in question is not designed to teach
someone the different ways to embed or nest \relative blocks with
\new Staff contexts with <<>> with {}, and so on -- it's meant only
to demonstrate how to change Staff size, period. [Of course, if there
*are* multiple ways OF CHANGING THE STAFF SIZE, they should all be
included in this example, if feasible/appropriate.]
It's just that, IMO, all Lilypond examples should employ precisely
the same, simple (i.e., least confusing) method of generating and
displaying all the Objects necessary to demonstrate the particular
issue in question, and they clearly don't right now.
More to your point, there definitely should be a specific example/
section/tip on all the different ways to generate the same output
with different context instantiation and nesting, which includes a
description of the pros and cons, examples of best places to use
each, etc.
For the record, I think the documentation has come forward *light-
years* in the past six months or so, primarily due to Graham's hard
work (or so it seems to me) -- I just think we can continue to
improve it, and this would be one of the ways. Also for the record,
I'm quite happy (once I'm finished composing this opera I'm working
on) to assume the role of Example-Code Janitor, to ensure that all
doc samples adhere to whatever standard(s) we agree upon.
Best,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
