Re: NR 2.1 Vocal music

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:14 PM

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 09:15:26AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > Graham Percival wrote Friday, August 27, 2010 9:54 PM
> >
> > >- do you absolutely need to use an @example rather than 
> > >@lilypond
> > >for
> > >the page-separator-markup ?
> > >That said, we really try to avoid repeating information that's
> > >elsewhere.  Unfortunately, the current doc page about
> > >page-separator-markup is rather un-optimal.
> > >If this were GDP, I'd run off and fix this by making a separate
> > >section right away, but for now I'll simply state it as a 
> > >problem.
> >
> > For now I've added an @lilypond, the smallest I
> > could devise that was realistic.  Is this OK?
> > (Note it overwrites the \paper block)
>
> Hmm... I'm not certain about the paper-size and indent.
> Particularly about the 'landscape bit.
>
> That said, I'm not certain that we *don't* want that stuff,
> either -- I haven't (yet) checked to see how it looks if you
> remove it.  The current example extends beyond the (normal)
> right-hand margin, though, so I'm not wild about it.
>
> Oh, and I don't like the \book, either.

Happy to remove paper size and landscape, and book,
but I'd like to keep indent 0 to show the separator
in a more realistic context.  Incidently, I simply copied
all these from the existing example in 4.1.2 Other
layout variables, and then elaborated it a bit.

> What about:
>
> \score {
>  {
>    c4 c c c
>    \break
>    c4 c c c
>  }
>  \paper {
>    system-separator-markup = \slashSeparator
>  }
> }
>
> Is that example missing anything important?

Well, that's pretty well the example that is already
shown in 4.1.2 Other layout variables, so I assumed
you wanted something better as you thought "the current
doc page about page-separator-markup is rather
un-optimal."

> I suppose it might be
> nice to add a StaffGroup in there rarther than only having a
> single staff... but I think this gets to the heart of the matter.

Definitely better with a staff group of some sort.
You'd never use a system separator with a single staff.

> NB: I'm thinking of a general NR 1.6.1 section here (see below),
> rather than specifically a choral one; that explains the
> difference between the ChoirStaff approach and my single-staff
> one.
>
> I definitely think that
>  c4 c c c
> is easier to understand than
>  \repeat unfold 8 { c4 }

Sure, again I just copied this from the existing
example.

> > System separators are only useful in multi-staff
> > documents, essentially full orchestral or choral
> > scores, so maybe it shouldn't have a section in
> > the main text.
>
> NR 1.6 Staff notation?
>
> I mean, system separators are pretty much on par with StaffGroup
> -- it's something you add to a (large) score to improve
> readability.  I'd totally go for a 1.6.1 Separating staves, to
> come at the end fo the current 1.6.1.

OK, I will move it there.

> > >- can't you do \layout { \context { \dynamicsUp }} ?  After
> > >mentioning
> > >\dynamicsUp, it feels really weird to see the arcane \override
> > >command
> > >in there.
> >
> > No, it seems predefs are not permitted in \context
> > blocks:
>
> Oh yes, another of our bugs that IIRC doesn't have an issue
> number.  Could you report it to the Bug Squad, or add it to the
> tracker yourself?  (after checking that I Did Recall Correctly,
> and that it really isn't in the tracker)

Will do

> Cheers,
> - Graham

Trevor