Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * use more complete and interesting examples lateron to explain
>> several related concepts
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I'd have to judge those on an individual basis.
Yes, of course. Attempts were the lead sheets, piano part, orchestral part.
> If I understand you correctly, then yes. The tutorial may gloss over
> some issues; the Notation chapters explain all the details.
Yes. That's the main reason behind the relative stuff.
> !!!
> That's the first I've heard about this. I wanted to avoid introducing
> \relative mode in the early stages, since it's more complicated that
> absolute pitches.
Indeed. That's the catch. Explaining about it is definately
something you do not want to do. That's where replacing not-\relative
by \absolute would make things a bit easier, as we now have to ask
people to accept and ignore it...
> I t would be quite
> nice if we could tell people "unless otherwise specified, all examples
> in the notation manual are implicitly inside".
>
> \relative c' {
> %%% printed text
> }
Yes, but that's not possible, we use other fragment options to tweak
the output. What we can say is: not all examples are ready for
cut-and-pasting, click on the .ly and copy the cut-and-pasteable
section from there.
Greetings,
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
