2016-04-04 23:58 GMT+02:00 David Sumbler <da...@aeolia.co.uk>:
>
> Just a thought - perhaps one day somebody who understands Lilypond well
> might write a section for the docs, starting with the basic
Well, the full quote:
LilyPond treats input like this:
\relative {
c''4 a d c
}
as shorthand for this:
> \book {
> \score {
> \new Staff {
> \new Voice {
> \relative {
> c''4 a b c
> }
> }
> }
> \layout { }
> }
> }
> structure shown in LM3.1.1 (what happened to \bookpart I wonder)
The example shows how LilyPond treats the input.
If you do:
bk =
\book {
\score {
\new Staff {
\new Voice {
\relative {
c''4 a b c
}
}
}
\layout { }
}
}
#(write-me "book? " (ly:book? bk))
#(write-me "book-parts present: " (ly:book-book-parts bk))
You'll se that _no_ bookparts are created. So the example _is_ complete.
Why mention bookpart if not present, same for other stuff like
ChoirStaff, ChordNames, DrumVoice, etc, etc
Btw, bookparts _are_ books. See:
bkprt =
\bookpart { \score { \new Staff { cisis'1 } } }
#(write-me "book? " (ly:book? bkprt))
They are differently treated, though...
In general I think we would do our users a favor to emphasize the
recommendation to use the various display-functions more prominently.
I do it all the time, sometimes writing special ones, like earlier in
this thread.
If I don't understand things, I first display them, always, sometimes
every little detail...
Works great form me.
Cheers,
Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
