I might just be adding to the noise level, but my quick-n-dirty workaround
to multiple verses that follow refrains is to paste in a bunch of empty
quotes - one pair per syllable. And once you have the set for verse 2
(verse 1 will have the refrain, of course), you just paste the whole set of
quotes into the other verses.
I just put together an entire hymnal this way.
And thanks to Trevor for showing us the "right way". Should I ever actually
wrap my brain around his approach, I know I will be a better lilypond coder
for it.
Best,
Jay
On Feb 4, 2008 6:59 AM, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed analysis! Trevor might want to modify the
> LM based on this -- I'm not certain if he knew how \book worked
> when he wrote the sections... I know that *I* didn't (and still
> don't) know how it works, and I'm the one who is theoretically
> editing his work. (that's why I always complain about getting
> advanced readers to review the docs. :)
>
> One comment about the last point, that we shouldn't expect to
> make it newbie-proof... while it's undoubtedly true that we can't
> make the whole thing newbie-proof, the LM is most definitely
> supposed to be newbie-proof. The idea is that a newbie starts at
> LM 1 and reads the whole thing; at each step of the way, we know
> exactly what the newbie knows, and there should be no problems.
> Once a newbie has finished reading the LM, he can progress to the
> NR, and shouldn't have any difficulty reading any of those
> sections.
>
> My general observation is that new users get into trouble when
> they try to skip over steps, or try learning about lilypond in
> other ways (such as reading the computer-generated lilypond output
> produced by NoteEdit... *shudder* ;). This also applies to people
> who started learning lilypond a year or more ago, and who think
> that there's nothing of benefit to them in the LM.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for the analyis!
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:51:02 +0100
> Nicholas WASTELL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:59:17 +0100
> > Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ... there's no need to use
> > > \book here. If you just remove the "\book {" and matching "}", you
> > > will get exactly the same result. If there's any information left
> > > in the current manual that indicates that you need to explicitly
> > > specify the \book command, please tell us, so we can clarify this
> > > issue even further.
> >
> > This was the route I took through the docs, once I had thought about
> > using two separate scores to achieve what I wanted. Docs versions
> > 2.11.37 (but a quick check shows that they are the same in .38).
> >
> > LM 3.1.1 : "The \book command allows several \score blocks to be
> > combined into one output." and then a link to NR 3.1.3.
> >
> > By this time (as others have said on the list) I was looking for
> > 'how-to', rather than 'if necessary'. However, consider also:
> >
> > LM 3.3.2 : "There can be only one top level context: the Score
> > context. This is created with the \score command, or, in simple
> > scores, it is created automatically."
> >
> > So, the use of \book seemed to be the way to have two \score in one
> > file. I agree that NR 3.1.3 says quite clearly that \book is not
> > necessary, but I didn't stay there very long. ;-) The next step was
> > to search LSR for '\book' (still looking for usage examples, rather
> > than if it was necessary) and I found id=300, with example code for
> > using \book. I tried it and it worked, after some juggling with
> > \paper. I have to confess that I didn't search the list for \book
> > because it was working by now. If I had searched, I would have found
> > that it wasn't necessary (I think that you have posted to two
> > different questions just in the last couple of weeks -- sorry!)
> >
> > With this kind of forensic analysis, it's easy to see the silly
> > mistakes and assumptions that I made. I try to be reasonably
> > diligent in researching as much as possible (hey, I'm the guy that
> > never switches _anything_ on until I have read the instruction book!)
> > but I could have done better, perhaps. I'm not sure that I would
> > ever have arrived at the solution offered by Trevor -- I'm not
> > entirely clear why concurrent lyrics cannot be placed immediately
> > after the Voice with which they are associated. However, I will bank
> > that experience now that I have met it.
> >
> > More generally, I have found the tolerance of LilyPond with simple
> > input, to be a two-edged sword. It can be very useful for ease of
> > entry and to get started with producing fantastic output, but it has
> > lured me into a coding style which is not very robust for more
> > complicated stuff. After starting off using braces and
> > angle-brackets very diligently, I found that many of them were not
> > necessary, so they fell by the way. Studying .ly output from
> > NoteEdit, Canorus and LilyPondTool also led me to make assumptions
> > when I should not have done, I think.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not sure that there is any immediate document change to
> > be made -- just put it down to newbie errors! The existing
> > documentation for LilyPond is undoubtedly the best I have found for
> > any FOSS software. Just don't expect to make it newbie-proof!
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Nick.
> > --
> > Nicholas WASTELL
> > France
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> > lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
