On 2011/02/06 17:48:56, Trevor Daniels wrote:
This comment of mine from Mark's patch still applies, even after these
changes:
> I've looked at the compiled version now. It's nicely
> written, but my concern is that this is no longer written
> in 'reference' style. To me, parts of it seem more
> suited to the LM.
ok, I've compiled it myself. I still think that once we optimize away
the "talking through the code", it'll fit into Notation.
Title blocks explained: ouch. The music example is classy, but boy does
it make the input code confusing! Maybe it's just been too long (... 8
years now?) since I wrote any music in lilypond.
(I recall Mats' suggestion that we use color highlighting in the docs...
that could really help here, but sadly nobody's been interested in
adding it)
The second half of that portion needs to be rewritten, but that's what
drafts are for.
Default layout of book and score title blocks: just delete all the text,
add a \header{} to the final @example, and it's fine. Those itemized
lists don't add any clarity for either a newbie or experienced user.
Default layout of headers and footers: this one needs some trickery with
@lilypond[options] to get really small pages, but once that's been
worked out, just dump a \header and \relative { c1 \pageBreak c1
\pageBreak...} in there.
I still think it's doable in half a dozen drafts. Maybe 7 or 8.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4124056/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
