Kaj Persson <70147pers...@telia.com> writes: > David, >> >> Since I already explained this in detail in the first reply, it seems >> like a total waste of effort when you express your complete surprise >> that things work the way I already explained in the first reply. Or >> actually, that the _result_ is the way I explained it. Because "I >> thought, that tags always change the source, but obviously I was >> wrong." rather suggests that you did not actually consider thinking >> about the explanation. >> >> Particularly in the light of that, you should aim to provide smaller >> examples in future as your mode of learning seems to be focused >> _completely_ on looking at examples _without_ considering explanations. >> So since the dissemination of an example is _mandatory_ for your >> learning, you really should aim to make at least this step as painless >> as possible for helpers. >> > Of course you are right. In your eyes I am a stupid person who does > not understand simple relations and explanations.
I might have expressed myself poorly. In my eyes I wasted time with an approach that wasn't helping you. The approach actually able to help you consisted on working through your example. One reason that I did not choose this approach right away but tried with non-example explanations was that your example was way too complex to explain things with unless one broke it down into elements suitable for explanation. Most people aren't fans of wasting their time, so I told you that in the light of you being someone who benefits significantly from having things explained by example (most people do, though to somewhat different degree), you'd do quite better if you made this as easy to do as possible. That you different than I do is no value judgment. Invariably when people ask how to learn C++, the answer is some "C++ made easy" book with 1500 pages consisting of handwavy explanations and examples. This kind of book is totally annoying to me in how it forces me to sift through lots of irrelevancies to get at the actual information, often forcing me to deduce it. I prefer just reading the standard definitions (or rather, the last public draft standard). Still bulky enough, but without all that noise. I am well aware that very few people do _that_, and that the market for books written like that is very small. That doesn't mean that I consider everybody benefitting from more example-heavy information than I prefer it "stupid": most of the people ending up doing the heavy lifting are in that category and are much more likely than myself to deliver a continuous stream of solid work without getting sidestepped or procrastinating while getting on everybody's nerves. > I can also tell, that I have followed your advice from your first > answer about variable. It was a fruitful solution and much better than > quoting (this time). Quoting really is rather limited in its usefulness. The main feature it has over music variables is extracting the correct time of a quote from a longer passage automatically. That is its principal value. If you don't particularly need _that_ or if it even gets in your way because your referencing music expression is given different timing (like when removing passages), you tend to be better off with music variables. Quotes can only work with a single voice and are _tied_ in their timing. This can often get in the way when using them outside of orchestral contexts. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user