Re: Another documentation issue

[Stephen]

> Currently Metronome Marks is section number 8.3.1>

Yes, but I am looking at the documentation currently online. It is just an 
example, I not trying to point out a problem that you have already solved

> Do you have any specific examples of un-lean format?>

I am quoting from the documentation. I can't defend words that are not my 
own. 'lean' should be clear from the context. I am suggesting that 
developers use some of the prefatory comments in the documentation as 
programming guidelines. But is really is up to the individual programmer to 
determine what that means or what impact if any that has on his programming 
style.

I see individual cases where I question whether the goal of keeping Lilypond 
lean is being kept in mind. Lean means to me don't give the user more than 
one way to do the same thing for instance. If there is something wrong with 
the way a user has to do something, just change it, instead of adding to it. 
Isn't this why Lilypond is not backward compatible? to avoid allowing the 
code getting bloated?

I am really only suggesting that not all developers are coding with the 
exact same philosophy in mind and that that is not good for Lilypond in 
general.

I hope no one takes this as a critisicm. There are a lot of coding styles 
and philosophies, but when I went to college for computer programming, I was 
told that if I join a project in mid-stream, I should try to adopt the 
coding style of the program already established. So I am thinking that the 
Introduction in the documentation might contain some hints on the coding 
style and philosophy of the original writers of the documentation and 
program. Hints that might still be valid today, although I am not sure about 
that, Lilypond is changing and perhaps there is a conscious choice to change 
the philosophy.

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
To: "Stephen" <address@hidden>
Cc: "lily-devel" <address@hidden>; "Han-Wen Nienhuys" 
<address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Another documentation issue


> On 19-May-05, at 7:48 AM, Stephen wrote:
> > For instance, in 5.7.4 Metronome marks, 'See also' points to 
> > MetronomeChangeEvent. Why not replace that with MetronomeMark? In the 
> > MetronomeChangeEvent page, I click on Metronome_mark_engraver and from 
> > there MetronomeMark.
>
> Currently Metronome Marks is section number 8.3.1, and it contains 
> MetronomeChangeEvent and MetronomeMark.  I'm proposing that we eliminate 
> the MetronomeChangeEvent and leave the MetornomeMark.
>
> > > We write a program capable of producing sheet music, and adjust the 
> > > format to be as lean as possible. When the format can no longer be 
> > > trimmed down, by definition we are left with content itself. Our program 
> > > serves as a formal definition of a music document.>
> >
> > I wonder if all the developers are still on board with the goal of 
> > keeping the format 'as lean as possible'?
>
> Sorry, I'm lost.  Do you have any specific examples of un-lean format?  Or 
> of any of
> your complaints?
>
> I suppose that the leanest-possible format would look like bad perl 
> code -- after all,
> why write "\new Staff" when we could use "&@" instead.  So I'd say that we 
> try to
> be lean yet still understandable.  :)
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham