Graham Percival <gpermus <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Jonathan Henkelman wrote: > > In terms of making it easier, I don't know if it would be straight forward or > > not, but if the PDF version of the manual had chapter numbers in the table on > > contents that showed on the bookmark pane (to the left) it would make it much > > easier to bounce around and find one's way back again. > > I'm sure that this can be done by adding a few words to some part of the > doc and/or makefiles; the problem is simply finding the right place and > figuring out the words. I'll look into this. Thanks much.
> > Is there a copy of the so called "programmers documentation" in a suitable > > format to download i.e. PDF (I know it would be long) or a few large HTML > > files, or an archive (tarball - whatever) of the current HTML documentation. > > I was hoping to do a bit more work on this over the break, but will have very > > limited web access... > > There _is_ a documentation tarball, but I'm not certain if it includes > the program reference. I have downloaded the tarball and it had the internals, but the links are broken apparently because the file extensions are not explicitly in the links. I am running IE 6.0.xxxx on Win XP. Perhaps it is a configuration problem in IE on my part. > > Some type of doc. that oulined the > > lexical construction of Lilypond would be helpful. I am not used to the level > > on confusion I am experiencing now, when learning a "language". > > As with all open-source projects, documentation depends on interested > people writing material. I don't have the time to pursue such a > project, but if you (or somebody else) wrote this material, I'd be more > than happy to add it to the manual. Ay - I hear you there. I have been considering taking on this project, and I still need to figure out if I have time before I get myself in over my head and unable to keep up with the commitment others might have made to me. A couple of questions I have been pondering in this regard: 1) Since I am fairly new to Lilypond, are there folks out there that would be willing to aid me in the likely event of confusion (I assume this group will do). 2) If/when inconsistencies in the language turn up - as I'm sure they will - is there an interest amoung the programmers to correct these? 3) A complaint I have seen both commonly on this archive and also on the "todo" list of the co-ordinators for lilypond, is to try and make the learning curve a bit less steep. One logical outcome of a document of this type is that it can be used to "clean up" the language - i.e. fulfilling this last goal. Is there any interest on the part of the programmers/organizers to undertake this task should I ever get this doc completed. I envision a process whereby the basic notation of lilypond stays the same (obviously), but: - perhaps some command forms would be dropped, - perhaps users would be forced into less freedom in the syntax - perhaps come commands would be morphed to fit into a framework that more closely matches other commands. - any changes would idealy be changeable in input scripts using some sed/diff routines to update routines would be automated (no point in unnecessarily agravating the end user) Some examples: As I can see it now, there are numerous ways to create contexts. In fact if I understand correctly, most commands create contexts. One example I saw in the archive explicly used the context command in all (most?) of these cases. Perhaps either forcing the use of context everywhere a context is being created, or eliminating its use altogether as it is basically implied everywhere would be helpful I have been banging my head against the \combineparts routine. Mats suggested a different form using polyphonic notation which does the task just as nicely. \combineParts does not (to my naive eyes seem to fit the same form as the other commands (e.g. \new Staff, \new Voice etc.) Differences such as this make the learning curve steeper. I think in the end Lilypond would be a cleaner language, but as always happens when trying to eliminate legacy code there is always someones toes being stepped on... What do people think about this... [snip established and reported error] > > Finally, is the web interface for posting to this archive the most straight > > forward method? I tried posting this yesterday, but it got lost in the > > ether. Is there perhaps an email address I can send the post to, where it > > will get sent back for validation etc. > > I believe the email address is at the bottom of every message on the > list: lilypond-user <at> gnu.org Not on my web based threaded client (Loom?). I feel like such a newbie, but I can't find it on the FAQ or anywhere else... I can post to gmane.test, but how would I post to followup without using the web interface (i.e. to avoid the top-post checking in cases when I am not actually top-posting...) Thanks, Jonathan _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
