on 2013-05-21 at 17:04 David Kastrup wrote: > Sure, but I'm afraid that your perceived lack of precision is something > that it is hard to find Florian at fault for since he is working with > the terminology employed by LilyPond.
of course! it was not my intention to imply otherwise. what i was trying to say was that using existing musical terminology to denote something that's not quite the precise meaning, is a potential source of confusion. > You might want to take a thorough look at the LilyPond manual and try > whether you see a feasible strategy for amending what you see as a > fault. to be honest, i had never paid attention to this until today, when helge pointed out the inconsistent use of the terms "note" and "pitch" in florian's presentation (which, as you said, was just the consequence of using lilypond's terminology, not florian's fault, of course). it seems the terminology is now deeply ingrained in lilypond and in the code itself, so it's not just a matter of modifying the manual here and there. if the community (and as a user i consider myself part of it) is OK with it, then fine. as i just said, it never bothered me. i just think it's not ideal. and perhaps also not quite consistent with lilypond's spirit of caring for perfection, beauty and correctness of music notation, which is itself a manifestation of music theory and musical thought. best, lj _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
