Re: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

My Dear David,

At the time I started this thread I was 100% sure that you would answer
something like this. ;)
Well, let's try to see former version :
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/essay/building-software, v2.14
says: "f4"
compare to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/essay/building-software, v2.19
says: "f'4"
Why's that?...


2016-07-22 16:28 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:

> Pierre Perol-Schneider <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> > Have you tried the snippet ? Have you seen the result ?
> >
> > It should be written :
> >
> > { <c' d' e'>4 }
> >
> > and not:
> >
> > <<c4 d4 e4>>
> >
> > Examples that follow should also be corrected.
>
> Well, "corrected" is a hard word: they work as written and intended.
> The main question I see here is how we should treat "Essay": as an
> authored essay that we only keep compilable, or as something where we
> actually want to keep the _content_ tracking best _current_ practices.
>
> Is it an Urtext or do we not just keep it playable on current
> instruments but rather let it make best use of the state of art?
>
> Bach has written keyboard works where keeping in spirit with the score
> has required contortions and approximations on contemporary instruments
> that became considerably more playable over time.  As opposed to
> historic LilyPond, historic players did not have the luxury of flatly
> stating "syntax error" or "colliding notecolumns cannot be resolved", so
> the historic essay had to make do with historic LilyPond rather than a
> hypothetical idealization.
>
> Should we ask the authors?  Or should we at least change that stuff
> where one would say, as a current-day user of LilyPond, "ew, what?"?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>