Eyolf,
On Jan 6, 2008, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
example, the problem is not so much knowing what it means -- that can
be
looked up quite easily -- but to know (a) what kind of variations does
a
user expect? does size matter? angle? are different symbols or styles
in
use, and are they informative variations, etc.; (b) figure out how to
effect all these variations through Lilypond code; (c) choose how much
of
this is really needed in the docs, and how much of it can be written
meaningfully without violating the "don't comment the examples
directly"
principle.
Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of Graham's example question. The
quality and useful of answers would depend on asking the RIGHT
questions. I partially disagree that things are easy to look up. Easy,
yes, if the question is simple and you know exactly what it is that you
are looking up. In my experience, it is almost always more informative
to ask someone who is an "expert of sorts" in the area I am confused.
In re your clarification re falls and doits above (a), yes, lots of
variations, sometimes the length of the gliss indicates length of fall
or doit. The fall/doit "symbol" is something like a musical font. I
personally would not tweak this feature much, unless I hated the preset
symbol. (b) can't help. (c) good question!
Your suggestion of a group of music consultants is fine, and I intend
to
try to distribute some responsibility along similar lines when we come
to
the Specialist notation chapters (so that Graham would not have to
write
the guitar section), but I fear that such a group would tend to become
too
loose (volunteers come and go), and it would probably be too much of a
hit-and-miss thing -- can I expect to have a sax player in the group
when I
write about doits? Maybe, maybe not. It is probably more practical if
people write in with concrete suggestions if something is missing,
wrong,
or unclear in their particular field of expertise.
I think we disagree slightly on how my proposal would work (or,
perhaps, how people behave). If I have to notate a classical guitar
passage and I consult the Lilypond documentation and I find it
inadequate, it is expecting a lot of my --- aka, the casual music
engraver --- to rewrite the documentation and send it to "somebody." (I
don't even know to whom I would send it.) On the other hand, if I am a
subscriber to a Lilypond Resource List and a specific question comes
along to which I know the answer, I think I would be inclined to answer
it. I do agree that from the documentation team's point of view it is
more practical for volunteers to commit to rewrite sections of the
manual.
Jeremiah
ps: How would an English speaker pronounce your name?
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
