On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:44:27 +0200 "Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/3 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Also consider whether you should use "system" instead of "line". > > Well, in this particular case the use of "line" was implied by "line > break". I could change this into "system break", but now we don't want > users to think we'll cause a system failure on their computer, do we? Well, I didn't say that you had to *change* it. Just that you should *consider* it. You've considered it now, so that's ok. :) > > - Separate text: kill the "word processor" thing. At most, you > > could say that you were using LilyPond as a text typesetter. > > We've already had that argument one year ago. Back then, I went to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor The definitive source of all knowledge and wisdom, of course. > and found that LilyPond > hardly lacks anything you can expect from a non-WYSIWYG word > processor. (Besides, I definitely regard this as a killer-feature.) Do you honestly consider LaTeX to be a "word processor"? IMO that would be stupid. And the best you can say about lilypond's text typesetting is that it has an extremely subset of latex's power. Calling lilypond a "non-WYSIWYG, small-featured, word processor" is deceptive. If you call it a typesetter, there's no confusion -- people who know a lot about this area will know what you mean, and people who don't know what that means would be confused by "word processor" anyway. > > Also, what do you mean by "using a specific syntax"? (same > > paragraph) > > \markuplines syntax. The next sentence precisely explains what I mean: > "This syntax is described in Multi-page markup. " No it doesn't "precisely explain". The word "this" refers back to "a specific syntax", which doesn't tell the reader anything. I mean, what's a non-specific syntax? { \writeSomeNote \addSomeArticulations \quoteARandomInstrument \RestABit \putCoolSoloHere } ?! (ok, now I actually want to write a piece like that. This is the first time I've ever been tempted to write a Cage-like piece. :) > > What does \markuplines do? If it's not obvious (ie not \slurUp), > > we need an example in the main text. > > Do you mean an @example? The same @example you explicitly forbid? :-) I said "an example", not "an @example". > I was tempted to have a markuplines @lilypond block here, but I > couldn't figure out how to print a multi-page snippet image. That can be forced by playing with the \paper or [linewidth] commands. See spacing.itely for some examples. That said, I don't think you need a multi-page example here. Just dump the example currently in "Multi-page markup" in here. > OK. > > OK. > > OK. > > OK. > > OK. > > OK. > > OK. > > OK. You don't need to quote stuff that you've done. I know that I'm right. I really don't need the ego boost of having you tell me. :) > > _New dynamic marks_ and _Manual repeat marks_.: no punctuation > > after the first @ref{}. Remember that we can't do that. > > ?? There are commas. Look twice. No, you maoing look twice. @noindent Some of these font families, used for specific items such as numbers or dynamics, do not provide all characters, as mentioned in @ref{New dynamic marks} and @ref{Manual repeat marks}. Where's this magical comma after the first @ref{} ?! > > @predef: missing \smaller and \larger. > > Indeed. One of these days, someone will have to tell me why the frak > we have been keeping both \larger and \bigger, that do exactly the > same. I'd vote for removing \bigger before 2.12. I'd actually rather kill \larger. \smaller \bigger sounds better than \smaller \larger. > > That's as far as I got before I got bored. > > Nice way of admitting you couldn't find anything else since everything > was perfect from there :) Uh-huh. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
