> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:46:48 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry Gold)
>
> For M-Tx:
>
> 1. Better documentation, [...]
Hm, that's always good - unless you have to write it.
Imho the M-Tx documentation is good ..
> [...] I notice that the index for version 0.40 is
> considerably more complete than for 0.30, but there are still some
> things missing (e.g., [ ] for forced beams,
... but I came to it after knowing most things about PMX. Imho a M-TX
user should read the PMX-documentation and it makes no sense to
duplicate the complete PMX-documentation in the M-Tx documentation.
[...]
> A wish for MusiXTeX: To date, if I want to have both sheet music
> and blocks of text on a page, I have to print them separately and
> cut-and-tape pieces of paper. This is outmoded. I would like to be
> able to tell MusiXTex "Here is some text. Pass it unmodified to TeX,
> then resume setting music."
>
> Of course, if I do that, the pre-processors will no longer know how
> many systems will fit on the page, so I should be responsible for
> telling them where to break pages.
musixdoc.tex shows how to combine LaTeX and MusiXTeX. If understood
it right then tex2ex is what you are looking for to combine M-Tx/PMX/
MusiXTeX with LaTeX. But in that case you have to understand the
MusiXTeX source generated by M-Tx/PMX and to be responsible for
the page-breaks. The MusiXTeX-source output of PMX *is* man readable
and that's a great advantage of PMX.
> I dunno, maybe I'm using the wrong preprocessor? Should I be learning
> Lilypond instead?
Are you sure that they generate TeX? I'm not sure. But maybe they only
dropped using MusiXTeX.
-- Werner
PS: As list-owner I'm happy that there are many spam attempts to the
list, because the BOUNCE now :-)
