Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:14 PM
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 09:15:26AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Friday, August 27, 2010 9:54 PM
>- do you absolutely need to use an @example rather than
>@lilypond
>for
>the page-separator-markup ?
>That said, we really try to avoid repeating information that's
>elsewhere. Unfortunately, the current doc page about
>page-separator-markup is rather un-optimal.
>If this were GDP, I'd run off and fix this by making a separate
>section right away, but for now I'll simply state it as a
>problem.
For now I've added an @lilypond, the smallest I
could devise that was realistic. Is this OK?
(Note it overwrites the \paper block)
Hmm... I'm not certain about the paper-size and indent.
Particularly about the 'landscape bit.
That said, I'm not certain that we *don't* want that stuff,
either -- I haven't (yet) checked to see how it looks if you
remove it. The current example extends beyond the (normal)
right-hand margin, though, so I'm not wild about it.
Oh, and I don't like the \book, either.
Happy to remove paper size and landscape, and book,
but I'd like to keep indent 0 to show the separator
in a more realistic context. Incidently, I simply copied
all these from the existing example in 4.1.2 Other
layout variables, and then elaborated it a bit.
What about:
\score {
{
c4 c c c
\break
c4 c c c
}
\paper {
system-separator-markup = \slashSeparator
}
}
Is that example missing anything important?
Well, that's pretty well the example that is already
shown in 4.1.2 Other layout variables, so I assumed
you wanted something better as you thought "the current
doc page about page-separator-markup is rather
un-optimal."
I suppose it might be
nice to add a StaffGroup in there rarther than only having a
single staff... but I think this gets to the heart of the matter.
Definitely better with a staff group of some sort.
You'd never use a system separator with a single staff.
NB: I'm thinking of a general NR 1.6.1 section here (see below),
rather than specifically a choral one; that explains the
difference between the ChoirStaff approach and my single-staff
one.
I definitely think that
c4 c c c
is easier to understand than
\repeat unfold 8 { c4 }
Sure, again I just copied this from the existing
example.
System separators are only useful in multi-staff
documents, essentially full orchestral or choral
scores, so maybe it shouldn't have a section in
the main text.
NR 1.6 Staff notation?
I mean, system separators are pretty much on par with StaffGroup
-- it's something you add to a (large) score to improve
readability. I'd totally go for a 1.6.1 Separating staves, to
come at the end fo the current 1.6.1.
OK, I will move it there.
>- can't you do \layout { \context { \dynamicsUp }} ? After
>mentioning
>\dynamicsUp, it feels really weird to see the arcane \override
>command
>in there.
No, it seems predefs are not permitted in \context
blocks:
Oh yes, another of our bugs that IIRC doesn't have an issue
number. Could you report it to the Bug Squad, or add it to the
tracker yourself? (after checking that I Did Recall Correctly,
and that it really isn't in the tracker)
Will do
Cheers,
- Graham
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
