Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> writes: > Hi all, > > There is an ongoing proposal to add syntax highlighting > in LilyPond's documentation. Since it is a notable change > to the documentation reading experience, user feedback would > be appreciated. You can browse a syntax-highlighted version > of the notation manual here: > > http://abou-samra.fr/highlighting-demo/notation/index.html > > For comparison, this is the current notation manual: > > https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/notation/index.html > > The main questions are: what do you think of the principle? > And is the color scheme good enough?
I just followed the discussion without much attention because I did not think that it would affect me whether or not there was syntax highlighting. That probably was a mistake. Taking a random example:
There is a wild mixture of colors and font styles without apparent rhyme or reason. I don't see that it helps legibility or conveys any useful categories. I cannot even figure out what it thinks it is doing. \layout, \context, \remove are reserved words in the syntax and are printed in boldface and black. So is \override which is printed in normalface blue, like \relative and \repeat. But \relative is a music function while \repeat is a reserved word. Beam.breakable is printed in red while unfold is printed in blue. There is apparently a large collection of colors and some font styles but the application appears rather haphazard, being neither systematically related to the actual category of the tokens nor to their function in user input. There does not appear to be a coherent payback for the inherent lowering of readability (and printability) from the lower contrast of colored passages. What is the information you want to convey better? -- David Kastrup
