[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol? |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:38:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) |
James <address@hidden> writes:
> Nothing sinister about it, and am happy to revert it but don't
> understand why this is bad. Sure the new example is much 'simpler'
> than having write all the \new Staff { with }, especially when I as a
> LP user want to write single system scores where I would probably
> never ever use \new Staff { \with.
You apparently did not read what I wrote. The new example _does_ _not_
_work_ in standalone contexts. It bombs out with an error message. If
a user tries to use that code, he won't understand why it produces
errors. Your "simplification" makes the user write _bad_ code, code
bombing out with errors for no apparent reason. In particular since the
documentation suggests it would work.
The _only_ reason it does not bomb out the documentation build process
is because it is enclosed in
@lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2]
which means that lilypond-book will silently wrap a
\relative c'' { ... } around the example without telling the user about
it. That is nice for avoiding clutter in the docs when we are talking
about constructs belonging inherently inside of a voice anyway.
It is not nice for conceptually top-level constructs like setting up
Staffs and systems.
And anyway, using music overrides instead of context modifications is
_asking_ _for_ _trouble_ here since the overrides take only effect at a
certain _musical_ moment. And that moment may already be too late for
proper typesetting.
There is no remotely current patch for 1935 registered, certainly not
anything that has even _remotely_ anything to do with this documentation
change.
So I am annoyed that there was not even the slightest chance given for
reviewing a change that is a change to the worse for a number of
reasons.
I am all for making Lilypond simpler to use. I have been slaving away
on simplifying Lilypond for a long time. But this documentation change
_lies_ about simplicity. What is proposed here _will_ _not_ _work_ in
the given form when put into a user document. Trying to use this will
annoy and frustrate the user.
--
David Kastrup
- Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?, David Kastrup, 2011/12/03
- Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?, Carl Sorensen, 2011/12/03
- Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?, David Kastrup, 2011/12/03
- Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?, Graham Percival, 2011/12/03
- Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?, David Kastrup, 2011/12/04
- Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?, James, 2011/12/04
- Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?, David Kastrup, 2011/12/04