I'm sorry, but I accidentally deleted the original message where you asked for suggestions for improving documentation. My feeling is that the documentation is very jumpy and scattered on any given topic. For example I have been using the index, or at least this index:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.8/Documentation/user/lilypond/LilyPond-index.html#LilyPond-index Which I now see is for 2.8 even though I was running 2.6. So just off the bat, maybe there should be a pointer (link) to the various versions of the documentation. Because it's only now that I 1st realize the documentation wasn't actually intended for me. But having used this index in an effort to learn the Lily code I have found in almost every case there is not enough information there to get the job actually done. For example the very first thing (actually 2nd) is scheme tutorial.. But in all honesty it's almost all Greek to me, particularly when the first think I might want to do is put the title on a piece. So If I were to write documentation, I would Start with something like. "How to notate a Lead sheet in Lilycode" Here is a basic template for for a Lilycode Lead Sheet: 1. The title is included or placed into the header along with the key of the piece and the time signature: Titles are Enclosed in Quotes for example: \title = "This is the Title" But what you have is: \paper { line-width = 9.0\cm paper-height = 10.0\cm } \book { \header { dedication = "dedicated to me" title = \markup \center-align { "Title first line" "Title second line, longer" } and a whole lot more. To be frank the documentation just isn't simple enough. There is far too much stuff to wade through to just enter the name of a piece, and more over as a computer program, Lilypond isn't exactly expeditious. I think the documentation needs to be tied to templates which can just be filled in and the templates need to be full of comments which explain the use of the code. Really Lilypond needs a complete Guide book on how to go about building a composition, because I can assure you that almost every little step turns out to be pure hell as it takes hours and hours to learn or do the simplest thing. I would think that you would start out with a single melody, then go to a duet or simple piano piece, and finally an orchestral score. Figured bass would be a separate categories That's why I think Lilypond needs to in some way be combined with Open Office so that most textual notations are just put in with a word processor over the top of the musical staves. Whatever the case, documentation for getting started needs to be based on very useful simplistic, but complete templates that have most of the elements of standard music composition and notation. I'm not really interested in how to deal with 7/10 time or multiple colored instrumental lines on a single staff. I would rather just like to get 4/4 time when I specify it. Just (Keep It Simple Stupid.) _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
