Eyolf Østrem wrote:
On 08.11.2007 (15:44), Graham Percival wrote:
Based on the recent discussions, what should change in the written policy?
I'd say: the following sentence:
However, they should be familiar with the material in the Learning
Manual (particularly ``Fundamental Concepts''), so do not repeat
that material in this book. Also, you should assume that users
Huh. On first reading, that looks exactly opposite of what I intended
to say...
... oh wait, I remember now! I was trying to say "don't explain that
{}() don't need to be nested... or that you can make a \new Staff{}
wherever you want... or that you can define variables ... etc".
Fundamental concepts should be explained in the NR also, but in a different
style than in the LM: in the NR in a precise, technical man page-like way,
in the LM in a tutorial style. There should not be *information* in the LM
which is not also available from the NR, it should just be presented
differently.
Agreed... ok, I guess I'd better do this sooner rather than later. I'll
add a NR 3 that discusses the same stuff as LM 2-3. Then the policy can
say "assume that readers are familiar with the material in NR 3".
It might seem a bit weird to assume that people know NR 3 when they're
reading NR 1, but I think we should start the NR with notation stuff,
not basic "lilypond is whitespace-insensitive"-type stuff.
Cheers.
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
