On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 04:39:45PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > On 5/22/09 4:25 PM, "Nick Payne" <nick.pa...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Patrick McCarty [mailto:pnor...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, 23 May 2009 8:15 AM > >> To: Nick Payne > >> Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > >> Subject: Re: Should sample code in NR build correctly? > >> > >> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:54:54AM +1000, Nick Payne wrote: > >>> For example, on p.98 of the PDF version of the 2.12.2 NR the > >> following > >>> example appears about half way down the page: > >>> > >>> \repeat volta 2 { c4 d e f } > >>> c2 d > >>> \repeat volta 2 { d4 e f g } > >>> > >>> If you try to build this using 2.12.2 on Windows you get > >>> > >>> error: syntax error, unexpected NOTENAME_PITCH > >>> > >>> c2 d > >>> > >>> and the output is two separate staves rather than the single staff > >> shown > >>> with the example. The whole thing has to be surrounded by \relative > >> c'' { } > >>> to get the desired output. > >>> > >>> The reason I ask is that I remember a post from someone a while ago > >> saying > >>> that the code as shown in the manuals had been used to produce the > >> output. > >> > >> If you click on the image of the musical example, and copy/paste the > >> appropriate code, it should compile. > >> > > That suggestion only works with the HTML documentation, not the PDF > > documentation. I almost always use the PDF documentation, as I can build an > > easily searchable index across all the different manuals. > > Nearly all the examples are in relative mode, meaning they have a > \relative c' {} > > (or some other octave) > > around them. It was a conscious choice to do so. This convention is > explained in Learning Manual 2.1.4 How to read the manual. > > How should it be more prominent?
I initially thought that the information should be presented *earlier* in the Learning Manual, but now that I have looked through the tutorial again, I think it would be confusing to explain the clickable examples before section 2.1.4 (soon to be section 1.1.4). So, it's okay the way it stands. -Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
