On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:51:02 +0100
Nicholas WASTELL <
address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:59:17 +0100
> Mats Bengtsson <
address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > ... there's no need to use
> > \book here. If you just remove the "\book {" and matching "}", you
> > will get exactly the same result. If there's any information left
> > in the current manual that indicates that you need to explicitly
> > specify the \book command, please tell us, so we can clarify this
> > issue even further.
>
> This was the route I took through the docs, once I had thought about
> using two separate scores to achieve what I wanted. Docs versions
> 2.11.37 (but a quick check shows that they are the same in .38).
>
> LM 3.1.1 : "The \book command allows several \score blocks to be
> combined into one output." and then a link to NR 3.1.3.
>
> By this time (as others have said on the list) I was looking for
> 'how-to', rather than 'if necessary'. However, consider also:
>
> LM 3.3.2 : "There can be only one top level context: the Score
> context. This is created with the \score command, or, in simple
> scores, it is created automatically."
>
> So, the use of \book seemed to be the way to have two \score in one
> file. I agree that NR 3.1.3 says quite clearly that \book is not
> necessary, but I didn't stay there very long. ;-) The next step was
> to search LSR for '\book' (still looking for usage examples, rather
> than if it was necessary) and I found id=300, with example code for
> using \book. I tried it and it worked, after some juggling with
> \paper. I have to confess that I didn't search the list for \book
> because it was working by now. If I had searched, I would have found
> that it wasn't necessary (I think that you have posted to two
> different questions just in the last couple of weeks -- sorry!)
>
> With this kind of forensic analysis, it's easy to see the silly
> mistakes and assumptions that I made. I try to be reasonably
> diligent in researching as much as possible (hey, I'm the guy that
> never switches _anything_ on until I have read the instruction book!)
> but I could have done better, perhaps. I'm not sure that I would
> ever have arrived at the solution offered by Trevor -- I'm not
> entirely clear why concurrent lyrics cannot be placed immediately
> after the Voice with which they are associated. However, I will bank
> that experience now that I have met it.
>
> More generally, I have found the tolerance of LilyPond with simple
> input, to be a two-edged sword. It can be very useful for ease of
> entry and to get started with producing fantastic output, but it has
> lured me into a coding style which is not very robust for more
> complicated stuff. After starting off using braces and
> angle-brackets very diligently, I found that many of them were not
> necessary, so they fell by the way. Studying .ly output from
> NoteEdit, Canorus and LilyPondTool also led me to make assumptions
> when I should not have done, I think.
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure that there is any immediate document change to
> be made -- just put it down to newbie errors! The existing
> documentation for LilyPond is undoubtedly the best I have found for
> any FOSS software. Just don't expect to make it newbie-proof!
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nick.
> --
> Nicholas WASTELL
> France
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
>
address@hidden>
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hiddenhttp://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user