Graham replied: > Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham wrote: > >> - move Micro tones into Accidentals. > > > > No, too specialist. Should it be moved into Specialist > > notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to > Other languages. > > I disagree with this, although I admit that I > can't come up with a good > reason. > > One of the things I was trying to do was to make > the new doc sections a > complete reference for each item. So Pitches > would include everything > about pitches, expressive marks would include > everything about that, etc.
Ah, yes - I'd forgotten this principle, which I support. So I withdraw my comment - see below. > > Here's where my reasoning falls down: I admit > that this doesn't work > with Ancient music. Pitches->displaying->clefs > doesn't include ancient > music clefs, for example. I'm still confident > that the manual should be > split up this way, but I can't point to a general > principle to back me > up on this. :| (other than "our ancient music > support is a bit old, > no pun intended, so I'd rather hide it at the > back of the manual") > Is this a better reason? The section on Ancient music is very substantial and includes much more than just clefs. It is right that it forms a self-contained section within Specialist notation rather than attempting to split it up into its component parts - noteheads, clefs, rests, time signatures, etc. Splitting it would result in a loss in clarity rather than an increase (that's the reason). OTOH the section on Microtones is tiny (at least for the present) and concerns a single topic - accidentals. It therefore slips easily into Accidentals. However, we should be conscientious to add prominent links to the Ancient music section from all the standard parts - from Accidentals to Ancient accidentals, etc - to compensate. > Cheers, > - Graham Trevor > > _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
