Re: GDP: new display for warnings
On 5 Oct 2007, at 23:20, Graham Percival wrote: On 4 Oct 2007, at 02:07, Graham Percival wrote: [Please note that non-members are not allowed to post on LilyPond- Devel, so cc-ing it will not result in replies.] Thanks for the warning, I had no idea! I may have changed over time - it did not bounce now. Check with David R. Linn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. (don't reply to this email, then) It is sort of automatic, when doing reply-to-all. Easier to not worry about the bounces. But the one that put up the cc may not get the intended effect. I find them quite useful in another project I maintain; should we use them throughout the LilyPond docs? I think you might more words, depending on the contents. For clarity of documentation writers, I've defined a single @warning {} macro, so we can only pick one word. Everybody likes "note", so I've gone with that. That is probably more normal in documents. The Bourbaki used a "dangerous bend" symbol, and Knuth in the "TeX book" used something like that to. So I think that the important thing is to get a clear classification whatever it is. Knuth uses a dangerous bend symbol in a road sign symbol. Perhaps an exclamation mark "!" could be used for information that is required for the code to compile. Now, the first part is really a requirement: Every part of LilyPond input must have curly braces placed around the input - or else the compile fails. So it is not merely a warning - it is a requirement. Also, I changed "piece" to "part", following Church's book on lambda calculus, which has a technical definition of a "part" of a lambda expression. It seems me, you have a similar syntactically closed part in mind here. Speaking non-technically (I've never read any of Church's writings, and I've forgotten his famous law/thesis/something on formal automata), I think that "piece" is better than "part". "Every piece of..." sounds more natural than "Every part of..." If this was in the user manual, I'd be tempted to go with the more technically correct word (ie "part"), but the tutorial is designed to be easy to read, so I prefer keeping "piece". Right. "Piece" is better informally; "part" would you ever decide to give a technical definition. And if they are omitted in the manual, is it because there is an error in the manual or what? This is explained in 2.1.4 How to read the tutorial. Then perhaps give some hint of that :-). If there should be a comment at all, it might be reworded as say: "as mentioned [before|elsewhere| in section 2.1.4], required [spaces|braces|stuff] may be omitted in the examples". This style makes the text somewhat heavier, but it helps local reading. Hans Åberg ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
Hans Aberg wrote: On 4 Oct 2007, at 02:07, Graham Percival wrote: [Please note that non-members are not allowed to post on LilyPond-Devel, so cc-ing it will not result in replies.] !!! Thanks for the warning, I had no idea! (don't reply to this email, then) I find them quite useful in another project I maintain; should we use them throughout the LilyPond docs? I think you might more words, depending on the contents. For clarity of documentation writers, I've defined a single @warning{} macro, so we can only pick one word. Everybody likes "note", so I've gone with that. Now, the first part is really a requirement: Every part of LilyPond input must have curly braces placed around the input - or else the compile fails. So it is not merely a warning - it is a requirement. Also, I changed "piece" to "part", following Church's book on lambda calculus, which has a technical definition of a "part" of a lambda expression. It seems me, you have a similar syntactically closed part in mind here. Speaking non-technically (I've never read any of Church's writings, and I've forgotten his famous law/thesis/something on formal automata), I think that "piece" is better than "part". "Every piece of..." sounds more natural than "Every part of..." If this was in the user manual, I'd be tempted to go with the more technically correct word (ie "part"), but the tutorial is designed to be easy to read, so I prefer keeping "piece". The part "These may be omitted in some examples in this manual...". Is it the braces or spaces that may be omitted? - Though English implies it referes to the braces, it is somewhat unclear. Thanks, fixed. And if they are omitted in the manual, is it because there is an error in the manual or what? This is explained in 2.1.4 How to read the tutorial. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
On 4 Oct 2007, at 02:07, Graham Percival wrote: [Please note that non-members are not allowed to post on LilyPond- Devel, so cc-ing it will not result in replies.] What do you think of the new warnings in the manual? In the Learning Manual, see 2.1.1 Compiling a file 2.3.1 Music expressions explained As always, look at the new docs on http://opihi.cs.uvic.ca/~gperciva/ I find them quite useful in another project I maintain; should we use them throughout the LilyPond docs? I think you might more words, depending on the contents. A thesaurus gives synonyms of "essential": indispensable, necessary, requisite, vital, important; fundamental, constitutional, characteristic, inherent, basic, intrinsic; absolute, cardinal, principal, leading, main, capital; substantial, material ... And one can look at other words, "note", to get more inputs. Looking at http://opihi.cs.uvic.ca/~gperciva/lilypond/Documentation/user/ lilypond-learning/Compiling-a-file.html#Compiling-a-file it says: Warning: Every piece of LilyPond input needs to have { curly braces } placed around the input. The braces should also be surrounded by a space unless they are at the beginning or end of a line to avoid ambiguities. These may be omitted in some examples in this manual, but don't forget them in your own music! In addition, LilyPond input is case sensitive. {c d e } is valid input; { C D E } will produce an error message. In a compiler, a "warning" is an intermediate between an "error", i.e., something causing the compile to fail, and "info(rmation)". For example, a construct that may cause compilation error in a later version, or something that may cause the running code to fail, even though the construct is legal. Now, the first part is really a requirement: Every part of LilyPond input must have curly braces placed around the input - or else the compile fails. So it is not merely a warning - it is a requirement. Also, I changed "piece" to "part", following Church's book on lambda calculus, which has a technical definition of a "part" of a lambda expression. It seems me, you have a similar syntactically closed part in mind here. The part "These may be omitted in some examples in this manual...". Is it the braces or spaces that may be omitted? - Though English implies it referes to the braces, it is somewhat unclear. And if they are omitted in the manual, is it because there is an error in the manual or what? Just some inputs. :-) Hans Åberg ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2007 schrieb Valentin Villenave: > Isn't N.B. Italian ("Nota Bene")? In a musical world where everybody > uses Italian terms such as Allegro, Vivo etc., it's pretty convenient Actually, it's Latin... Italian musical terms are things that people are accustomed to, but I'm not so sure N.B. is that common with lots of people. "Note:" sound much more down-to-earth. Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, Vienna University of Technology, Austria email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial and Actuarial Mathematics, TU Wien, http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/ * K Desktop Environment, http://www.kde.org, KOrganizer maintainer * Chorvereinigung "Jung-Wien", http://www.jung-wien.at/ ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
2007/10/5, Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Everybody likes N.B., so I'm happy to change that... but does > > everybody understand the term? I'm thinking of somebody with a shaky > > understanding of English. > How about "Note:" ? Isn't N.B. Italian ("Nota Bene")? In a musical world where everybody uses Italian terms such as Allegro, Vivo etc., it's pretty convenient :) (I like "Note." too, though) Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
Quoting Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Mark Knoop wrote: Yes, it's a good idea. +1 to "N.B." instead of "Warning" though. Everybody likes N.B., so I'm happy to change that... but does everybody understand the term? I'm thinking of somebody with a shaky understanding of English. Of course, having it in the box kind-of already says "warning", so I'm relatively confident that we can change this without introducing confusion. How about "Note:" ? /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
Mark Knoop wrote: Yes, it's a good idea. +1 to "N.B." instead of "Warning" though. Everybody likes N.B., so I'm happy to change that... but does everybody understand the term? I'm thinking of somebody with a shaky understanding of English. Of course, having it in the box kind-of already says "warning", so I'm relatively confident that we can change this without introducing confusion. (And notice that the sentence immediately after the warning box in 2.1.1 contradicts the warning itself...) Technically it says "should be", not "must be", so it's not contradicting. :P Yeah, yeah, I fixed it. :) Cheers - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
Eyolf Østrem wrote: > On 03.10.2007 (17:07), Graham Percival wrote: >> What do you think of the new warnings in the manual? In the Learning >> Manual, see >> 2.1.1 Compiling a file >> 2.3.1 Music expressions explained > > I definitely like it. I'm not sure about the word "Warning", though... > makes it sound dangerous... In Norwegian I would have used NB -- I > don't know how that would work? Yes, it's a good idea. +1 to "N.B." instead of "Warning" though. (And notice that the sentence immediately after the warning box in 2.1.1 contradicts the warning itself...) -- Mark Knoop ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: new display for warnings
On 03.10.2007 (17:07), Graham Percival wrote: > Hi guys, > What do you think of the new warnings in the manual? In the Learning > Manual, see > 2.1.1 Compiling a file > 2.3.1 Music expressions explained I definitely like it. I'm not sure about the word "Warning", though... makes it sound dangerous... In Norwegian I would have used NB -- I don't know how that would work? e -- This is your fortune. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
GDP: new display for warnings
Hi guys, What do you think of the new warnings in the manual? In the Learning Manual, see 2.1.1 Compiling a file 2.3.1 Music expressions explained As always, look at the new docs on http://opihi.cs.uvic.ca/~gperciva/ I find them quite useful in another project I maintain; should we use them throughout the LilyPond docs? Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user