Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:18:33AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: > > My "concept glossary" idea is now called a "technical glossary". > I thought the name was fine when it was suggested, but now I'm > realizing something -- I'd also like it to list terms that are not > specifically dealing with LilyPond *internals*. Such as: > > the archives What does this mean? The mailist archives? > the LSR > the tracker > Rietveld > Savannah I really think this is going overboard. Contributors will know most of these already; if I need to explain what Savannah is to one or two people, that's no problem. I would stick to explaining things like grobs. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:18 PM My "concept glossary" idea is now called a "technical glossary". I thought the name was fine when it was suggested, but now I'm realizing something -- I'd also like it to list terms that are not specifically dealing with LilyPond *internals*. Such as: the archives the LSR the tracker Rietveld Savannah These include words in the LP "vernacular". So when someone comes across one of these terms in the archives for example, they'll have a place to look up the definition. I believe that a central location for such jargon definitions will be very valuable. If they don't fit in a "technical glossary" than we should change the name of the glossary. Because I don't expect that anyone is in favor of adding yet another appendix? Although an argument could be made for compartmentalizing the resources... Thoughts? These terms don't really belong in the Notation Reference, do they? Perhaps we need to think again whether this appendix, whatever it is called, is intended to help users or developers. If the intention is solely to help new developers then the CG is the right place. I was hoping we could also include terms which helped users, hence I placed it in the NR, but I think some of these terms would stretch an NR appendix too far. One solution would be to have a Technical Glossary in the NR specifically for users and a Concepts Glossary in the CG specifically for developers. But I'm not even sure these terms are suitable for a glossary. They should really be explained in the main body of the AU (first two) and CG (last three). Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
My "concept glossary" idea is now called a "technical glossary". I thought the name was fine when it was suggested, but now I'm realizing something -- I'd also like it to list terms that are not specifically dealing with LilyPond *internals*. Such as: the archives the LSR the tracker Rietveld Savannah These include words in the LP "vernacular". So when someone comes across one of these terms in the archives for example, they'll have a place to look up the definition. I believe that a central location for such jargon definitions will be very valuable. If they don't fit in a "technical glossary" than we should change the name of the glossary. Because I don't expect that anyone is in favor of adding yet another appendix? Although an argument could be made for compartmentalizing the resources... Thoughts? - Mark ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Trevor Daniels wrote: > BTW, I'd be grateful if you and other developers could keep an > eye on the text as I add it, and fix or comment on any inaccuracies, > as I'm a little out of my depth with some of the terms. No need to worry. Any inaccuracies will be cleared up eventually. I, for one, won't be ignoring this. Thanks so much for your contributions! - Mark ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
John Mandereau wrote Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:47 PM At least one of the terms listed by Mark is introduced in the Learning Manual: "grob" in 4.1.2 Objects and interfaces. I see this glossary could be a quick reference that briefly defines each term and gives cross-references to documentation where the term is used and explained its context. Agreed. I've added a few links now. BTW this could even go into the new document improperly called essay.tely, couldn't it? It could, but I think it's better in the NR, as a source of reference for both users and new developers struggling to master the jargon, rather than part of an overview of LilyPond's development. BTW, I'd be grateful if you and other developers could keep an eye on the text as I add it, and fix or comment on any inaccuracies, as I'm a little out of my depth with some of the terms. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Le mercredi 05 août 2009 à 09:09 +0100, Trevor Daniels a écrit : > Any further thoughts? At least one of the terms listed by Mark is introduced in the Learning Manual: "grob" in 4.1.2 Objects and interfaces. I see this glossary could be a quick reference that briefly defines each term and gives cross-references to documentation where the term is used and explained its context. BTW this could even go into the new document improperly called essay.tely, couldn't it? My 2 cents, John signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Trevor Daniels wrote Wednesday, August 05, 2009 9:09 AM Trevor Daniels wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:16 PM Mark Polesky wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:06 PM It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. ... It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". So I'll put the stub as a new NR Appendix. I've just pushed a stub for the new NR Appendix, with a few of the terms fleshed out. Now I need some help with text for the others from informed developers. Either edit and push directly, or email me with text, whichever seems easiest. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Trevor Daniels wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:16 PM Mark Polesky wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:06 PM It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: grob prob smob output-def callback simple-closure It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get the idea. Any thoughts? It would be a helpful addition. The best place would be another appendix to the NR. The only alternative would be the CG, but this would not be helpful to users. As it's a glossary, including terms which users don't ever need would not a problem, I think. (The LM is too simplistic for this, the MG is for musical terms and the AU is not appropriate.) Maybe Technical glossary would be a better term? But we need to wait for more comments before taking any action. OK, we've now had a few comments, all in favour. So I'll go ahead and add a stub. So where? Three prefer the NR (me, Reinhold, Graham) Two prefer the CG (Valentin, Ian) Mark hasn't stated a preference. Of the three preferring the NR two prefer an Appendix and one the main body (Graham). On the grounds that developers should be very familiar with material in the NR it is not a hardship for them to look there for information, especially as we can reference the NR from the CG. But it would be unreasonable to expect users trying out a Scheme function for their score to look in the CG, especially as (at present) we have no macro to reference the CG from the NR (maybe a good thing). Another point in favour of the NR is so we can reference it in warnings about parser variables, for example, rather than repeating the explanation in several places. So I'll put the stub as a new NR Appendix. No one has commented on the heading. I prefer Technical glossary over Concepts glossary to avoid confusion with the concepts index (cindex), although I admit this term isn't used visibly in the user documentation. Any further thoughts? Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Trevor Daniels wrote: Mark Polesky wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:06 PM It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: grob prob smob output-def callback simple-closure It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get the idea. Any thoughts? It would be a helpful addition. The best place would be another appendix to the NR. The only alternative would be the CG, but this would not be helpful to users. As it's a glossary, including terms which users don't ever need would not a problem, I think. (The LM is too simplistic for this, the MG is for musical terms and the AU is not appropriate.) Maybe Technical glossary would be a better term? But we need to wait for more comments before taking any action. Trevor +10 As these are all things for helping developers to get up to speed, I think they fit best in the CG. Cheers, Ian --- Begin Message --- Trevor Daniels wrote: Mark Polesky wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:06 PM It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: grob prob smob output-def callback simple-closure It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get the idea. Any thoughts? It would be a helpful addition. The best place would be another appendix to the NR. The only alternative would be the CG, but this would not be helpful to users. As it's a glossary, including terms which users don't ever need would not a problem, I think. (The LM is too simplistic for this, the MG is for musical terms and the AU is not appropriate.) Maybe Technical glossary would be a better term? But we need to wait for more comments before taking any action. Trevor +10 As these are all things for helping developers to get up to speed, I think they fit best in the CG. Cheers, Ian --- End Message --- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Trevor Daniels wrote: Mark Polesky wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:06 PM It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: grob prob smob output-def callback simple-closure It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get the idea. Any thoughts? It would be a helpful addition. The best place would be another appendix to the NR. The only alternative would be the CG, but this would not be helpful to users. As it's a glossary, including terms which users don't ever need would not a problem, I think. (The LM is too simplistic for this, the MG is for musical terms and the AU is not appropriate.) Maybe Technical glossary would be a better term? But we need to wait for more comments before taking any action. Trevor +10 As these are all things for helping developers to get up to speed, I think they fit best in the CG. Cheers, Ian ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Le 31/07/2009 07:55, Patrick McCarty disait : On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:06:59AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: grob prob smob output-def callback simple-closure It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get the idea. I like this idea. Having a list in an NR appendix would be just fine with me. However, it would be difficult to auto-generate a lot of this documentation, because not all of it is defined in LilyPond's internals: grob - LilyPond prob - LilyPond smob - Guile output-def - LilyPond callback - Programming concept simple-closure - Programming concept etc... Thanks, Patrick +100, even for us translators. I'm not very fond of acronyms anyway: UNO is also an amazing card game; ILO does mean for me Intercommunalité du Lubéron Oriental (nothing to deal with international); a smob might be a Special Melange Of Beers; and I'm sure I examinated the LM when I visited the Air and space Museum in Washington,DC some 25 years ago. I do think that as long as some concept appear abbreviated or under the form of an acronym along the documentation, it is fair for the reader to index them in a dedicated place. Cheers, Jean-Charles ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 1. August 2009 14:28:48 schrieb Graham Percival: > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:21:09PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > > 2009/7/31 Graham Percival : > > > IMO this is more "main NR chapter" material. Appendices are > > > generally tables and auto-generated material. I could imagine NR > > > 6 being pretty much what it is right now -- essentially just > > > simply substitution macros -- and a NR 7 being for advanced > > > scheme. (I mean, not \textPad #3.0 stuff, but for the amazingly > > > complex stuff that Mark's always doing) > > > > I hardly think this has anything to do with *notation* per se, i.e. > > _nobody_ ever needs to know what a smob is in order to engrave a > > score. > > Really? Nicolas doesn't need to know about grobs in order to do > all the fancy scheme stuff he uses in his operas? (I assume that > "smob" was a typo... do we actually have something called a > smob?!) grobs (graphical objects) and smobs (scheme objects) are particular to lilypond, they are not part of musical notation, but rather the internals of one particular implementation. True, it might be good to have a glossary of the liypond terms (grobs, smobs, engraver, context, output-def, closure, context property, stencil, etc). Intuitively, I would add it as an appendix to the NR, at least that's where you would expect and find such additional supportive material it in a printed book. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKdDhOTqjEwhXvPN0RAjQ6AKCNnSgeqbq+iB9eNu0D3FjX7viR+ACgx2gT kDFkhcAYSivyeVD6hIAgCDI= =Y4Lt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:21:09PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote: > 2009/7/31 Graham Percival : > > IMO this is more "main NR chapter" material. Appendices are > > generally tables and auto-generated material. I could imagine NR > > 6 being pretty much what it is right now -- essentially just > > simply substitution macros -- and a NR 7 being for advanced > > scheme. (I mean, not \textPad #3.0 stuff, but for the amazingly > > complex stuff that Mark's always doing) > > I hardly think this has anything to do with *notation* per se, i.e. > _nobody_ ever needs to know what a smob is in order to engrave a > score. Really? Nicolas doesn't need to know about grobs in order to do all the fancy scheme stuff he uses in his operas? (I assume that "smob" was a typo... do we actually have something called a smob?!) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
2009/7/31 Graham Percival : > IMO this is more "main NR chapter" material. Appendices are > generally tables and auto-generated material. I could imagine NR > 6 being pretty much what it is right now -- essentially just > simply substitution macros -- and a NR 7 being for advanced > scheme. (I mean, not \textPad #3.0 stuff, but for the amazingly > complex stuff that Mark's always doing) I hardly think this has anything to do with *notation* per se, i.e. _nobody_ ever needs to know what a smob is in order to engrave a score. A few days ago we discussed the possibility of having an appendix to the CG, and I think this is where such material would belong. Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Patrick McCarty wrote: > I like this idea. > > Having a list in an NR appendix would be just fine with me. > > However, it would be difficult to auto-generate a lot of this > documentation, because not all of it is defined in LilyPond's > internals: > > grob - LilyPond > prob - LilyPond > smob - Guile > output-def - LilyPond > callback - Programming concept > simple-closure - Programming concept I don't imagine this will be auto-generated any more than the music glossary is. For "smob", a link to the guile manual would suffice for the time being. "callback" needs to be explained in LilyPond terms; there's a good start in NR 1.6.6 "Scheme procedures as properties". I imagine this will be a team effort over time. Probably best to start with "stubs" and gradually flesh them out. - Mark ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:06:59AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: > > It would be nice to have some central place that explains some > "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer > might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: > > grob > prob > smob > output-def > callback > simple-closure > > It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could > also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. > I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. > I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get > the idea. I like this idea. Having a list in an NR appendix would be just fine with me. However, it would be difficult to auto-generate a lot of this documentation, because not all of it is defined in LilyPond's internals: grob - LilyPond prob - LilyPond smob - Guile output-def - LilyPond callback - Programming concept simple-closure - Programming concept etc... Thanks, Patrick ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
+2009/7/31 Mark Polesky : > > It would be nice to have some central place that explains some > "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer > might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: > > [...] > > Any thoughts? +10 :-) Max ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16:37PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Mark Polesky wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:06 PM >> >> It would be nice to have some central place that explains some >> "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer >> might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: > > It would be a helpful addition. The best place would > be another appendix to the NR. IMO this is more "main NR chapter" material. Appendices are generally tables and auto-generated material. I could imagine NR 6 being pretty much what it is right now -- essentially just simply substitution macros -- and a NR 7 being for advanced scheme. (I mean, not \textPad #3.0 stuff, but for the amazingly complex stuff that Mark's always doing) That said, I was kind-of hoping not to get into NR 4+ at the moment, at least until the current doc rearrangement is done. :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LilyPond concept glossary?
Mark Polesky wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:06 PM It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: grob prob smob output-def callback simple-closure It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get the idea. Any thoughts? It would be a helpful addition. The best place would be another appendix to the NR. The only alternative would be the CG, but this would not be helpful to users. As it's a glossary, including terms which users don't ever need would not a problem, I think. (The LM is too simplistic for this, the MG is for musical terms and the AU is not appropriate.) Maybe Technical glossary would be a better term? But we need to wait for more comments before taking any action. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LilyPond concept glossary?
It would be nice to have some central place that explains some "internals" concepts. Here are examples of things that a new developer might have to ask about, or perhaps spend a long time disentangling: grob prob smob output-def callback simple-closure It would be nice to have a LilyPond-specific glossary, that users could also use. For example, a user might get "glyph" and "stencil" confused. I still get "command" "keyword" "identifier" and "variable" confused. I still don't know the difference between "parser" and "lexer". You get the idea. Any thoughts? - Mark ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
