2008/8/15 Carl D. Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My model for the Learning Manual is that it answers the question "How do I > do something?" The Notation Reference tells me "How do I solve problems > with something in the LM?", or "How do I extend what I learned in the LM?". > > The shortcuts we learn in the LM are _very_ useful for setting simple music. > However, we often need to move beyond them to set real music. This is where > the NR can be useful. Somehow, the NR needs to explain both the full > notation and the shortcut. The full notation is needed because we need it > to solve some real world problem. The shortcut is useful because it often > makes things easier. > > Explaining a shortcut in terms of "This shortcut notation is a shortcut for > doing 5 different things the long way, and here are the five things you are > doing" is, in my opinion, less useful than saying "Here are the five things > you need to do to accomplish foo. There is a shortcut notation for > accomplishing these things." > > The explicit teaching of both in the NR is, IMO, vital. It's a matter of > opinion as to which comes first. But it always seems awkward to explain a > shortcut in terms that have not yet been defined, which is why I prefer to > have the full syntax included before the shortcut *in the NR*.
I fully agree with this approach. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) http://www.paconet.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
