"Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> writes: > David, > > Thank you for your continued effort to instruct me in this matter. > > I am amazed/surprised/confounded on the amount of time and effort that has > been expended on a justification of the "minimal" requirement what could > have been spent on just viewing (via Frescobaldi not a PDF) the "errors" in > my code. (Wow that was a run on!). > > You rightfully note that "an experienced user, namely Thomas Morely" > was needed to comply to with the "minimal" requirement.
No. I stated that even an experienced user, namely Thomas Morely, was unable to discover the problem _without_ first significantly reducing the example. When I say that even a well-trained high jumper needed to take the stairs for getting up a story, that does not mean that it requires a well-trained high jumper for taking the stairs. It means that it definitely requires the use of the stairs so there is little point in waiting for a well-trained high jumper to come by. Now Thomas went to the pain to make a step-by-step demonstration of the process to reduce your sample to minimal. If all you take from that demonstration is the end result from that demonstration rather than the process, I doubt he will be inclined to provide all of either the next time. Or rather, it will likely very much depend on his mood at the time. So you really are doing yourself a favor if you try, inefficient as it may seem at first, to apply a similar procedure of reduction to future examples. There is nothing wrong with failure, and there is nothing wrong with asking questions how to do better or more. As long as people get the impression that you are trying to follow their instructions in order to make life easier for those helping you, they will likely be sympathetic and lend you a helping hand. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
