2007/12/9, Rune Zedeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=289 > > I searched to LSR for "music-box", and as it didn't show up anything I > assumed that the snippet had not been added to the LSR.
IIRC, it's one of the snippets I added myself about a year ago. When I did, I had to give it a more self-explanatory title than just "music-box" :) However, I renamed it to add the "music box" terms in the title for better compatibility. > Though, looking at it, I see that it has been somewhat messed up. I wouldn't say that. Somebody (maybe Graham) commented a large part of the code, but the full code is still there. (Plus, it has been commented in the input/ files, so it's not about the LSR at all). > Somebody has shortened it, so that it only contains the two first > measures, but the variables that contain the end of the prelude (enda, > endb and endc) are still defined without being used. Yes, but they're ready to be used (one only has to uncomment the code if the functions do interest him). > I would vote for reverting the example to the whole prelude. It is more > illustrative that way. In the input/ files? I doubt it's worth it. In the documentation? definitively not. In the LSR? Might be worth giving it a shot. I uncommented the code, so users can see the full Prelude if they want to (besides, it's cool to finally use the "Large Snippet" feature once in a while). If we ever (it's being discussed right now) implement the LSR *in* the docs however, we may have to shrink this snippet down (without removing any of the code, once again). Valentin _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
