Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
2008/2/4, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Interesting! I must admit that I found nothing objectionable with > the "which"es that Kurt suggested replacing with "that"... > actually, in a few cases, I thought that "which" sounded better. I often use which, because I like it much more than "that"; however, I must do horrible sentences without knowing it, since I'm French, and have never learned English in any other way than TV-shows and mailinglists :) ...*Which* is why I apologize for the point *that* Kurt raised :) I am probably the one to blame for odd formulations in snippets descriptions etc. Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 1 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
2008/2/3, Kurt Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On page 10, first paragraph -- In that case, "Double accidentals ..." What > is this sentence quoting? Perhaps it should just be integrated into the > sentence. It was originally a feature request posted by an user on the mailing-list; and the contributor who wrote the snippet (I think it was Rune) simply quoted his request, as it described clearly the function's goal. However, you are right to point out that it can be confusing (particularly since it's included in the NR); so I removed the quoted sentence. And BTW thank you for having taught me the word "Ditto" :-) Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:34:43 -0500 (EST) Ralph Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which > > begin a new system: > > Each to his/her own I guess. > > In this case "that" is correct and "which" is incorrect. > To me, "which" sounds strange in this context. > It implies to me that tied notes begin a new system > *which* is, of course, untrue. :) I think that's a different meaning of "which". Hmm... if we had a comma before the "which", I'd buy into your reading. I think we're getting into silly territory here. (or rather, I think we wandered into silly territory about 8 emails ago :) > What people think of as strange or normal depends on their > common usage in spoken language I find. > > That's why you still see people writing > "there" instead of "they're" and > "where" instead of "we're". > > Don't even get me started on "its" :D No, those are clearly just idiots. Nobody whose [sic] intelligent can possibly disagree over those things. :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
> Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which > begin a new system: Each to his/her own I guess. In this case "that" is correct and "which" is incorrect. To me, "which" sounds strange in this context. It implies to me that tied notes begin a new system *which* is, of course, untrue. :) What people think of as strange or normal depends on their common usage in spoken language I find. That's why you still see people writing "there" instead of "they're" and "where" instead of "we're". Don't even get me started on "its" :D Regards, Ralph - All new Yahoo! Mail - - Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:58:35 - "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Percival wrote 04 February 2008 16:27 > > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600 > > Stan Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > > > > > >> I bet that there's less than a hundred people > > > > > > > > You mean "I bet there are fewer than..." ;-) > > > > *hmph* > > In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is > > appropriate for singular or plural use. > > :) > > > I think Kieren also meant the distinction between > less and fewer :) Whoops. Guilty as charged. Although I don't think that I'd ever write "... there are less than...". I think it's my use of the colloquial "'s" that messed me up here. > Well it certainly is not clear, but that is not due > to the choice of "that" or "which". Accidentals are > certainly printed in other places than this suggests. > > Perhaps it means, "Accidentals are printed on > tied notes only when the note to which they are > tied is on the previous system." Good point! (although I think a simple word swap suffices to clarify this -- "Accidentals on tied notes are only printed at the beginning of a new system: ") You see, this is why I keep on asking everybody to read the same section over and over again... we keep on finding things like this. > Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always- > annoyingly recommends "that" for all restrictive > clauses. That seems an excellent reason to use > "which" whenever possible :) :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Trevor (et al.), I think Kieren also meant the distinction between less and fewer :) Indeed! =) Perhaps it means, "Accidentals are printed on tied notes only when the note to which they are tied is on the previous system." Good point. Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always- annoyingly recommends "that" for all restrictive clauses. That seems an excellent reason to use "which" whenever possible :) =) Best, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Graham, I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother anybody? Or make it unclear? No... but there *are* things in NR 1.1 Pitches which *could* be clearer. I'm teaching every week day, and have rehearsals every evening this week, but am hoping to get my NR 1.1 comments in soon. I am willing to go on record in stating that a native LilyPond writer, who has been reading and creating lilypond code every day for over twenty years, will have no need to know the formal rules of LilyPond grammar. Fair enough... but their code could easily be useless for "public use" (e.g., Mutopia), and that's not what we should be striving for (IMO). Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Stan, Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing Lilypond's "grammar?" I agree: 1. By using "poor Lilypond grammar", I can write an .ly file which compiles and outputs a "valid" score of Beethoven 9, but is essentially unreadable (as an input file) by any human, including well-trained Lily users. 2. I could also use "good Lilypond grammar", and produce an .ly file *also* compiles and outputs a "valid" score of Beethoven 9 -- visually indistinguishable from the other version -- and yet is (much more easily) readable than the previous .ly file, and thus is more effective at communicating Lilypond-ness. I think we should all be striving for #2. =) Best regards, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Graham Percival wrote 04 February 2008 16:27 > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600 > Stan Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > > > >> I bet that there's less than a hundred people > > > > > > You mean "I bet there are fewer than..." ;-) > > *hmph* > In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is > appropriate for singular or plural use. > :) > I think Kieren also meant the distinction between less and fewer :) > I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother > anybody? Or make it > unclear? > > Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which > begin a new system: > Well it certainly is not clear, but that is not due to the choice of "that" or "which". Accidentals are certainly printed in other places than this suggests. Perhaps it means, "Accidentals are printed on tied notes only when the note to which they are tied is on the previous system." > I personally think that "which" makes the > sentence flow better -- > that's why I changed it from the "that" which was > originally put > there by Valentin (IIRC). When Kurt complained, > I changed it back > to "that", but I still think which there's > nothing wrong with > "which" in that sentence. [sic :P ] I agree. "which" is perfectly correct here, and like you, I prefer it. You have a choice for restrictive clauses. You may base your choice on style, on previous words in the sentence, or simply your feeling for what sounds best. Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always- annoyingly recommends "that" for all restrictive clauses. That seems an excellent reason to use "which" whenever possible :) Trevor D ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600 Stan Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > >> I bet that there's less than a hundred people > > > > You mean "I bet there are fewer than..." ;-) *hmph* In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is appropriate for singular or plural use. :) > > That is to say, content presented with bad grammar is less easy/ > > interesting/enjoyable to read than the same content written > > "correctly" -- and the content is therefore less effective at > > accomplishing its main purpose, which is communication. Look, are we talking "horrible monstrocity, such that are, commonly wrote, by non-English native speaker", or a minor word choice? I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother anybody? Or make it unclear? Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which begin a new system: I personally think that "which" makes the sentence flow better -- that's why I changed it from the "that" which was originally put there by Valentin (IIRC). When Kurt complained, I changed it back to "that", but I still think which there's nothing wrong with "which" in that sentence. [sic :P ] > Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing > Lilypond's "grammar?" Sure! I am willing to go on record in stating that a native LilyPond writer, who has been reading and creating lilypond code every day for over twenty years, will have no need to know the formal rules of LilyPond grammar. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Graham, I bet that there's less than a hundred people You mean "I bet there are fewer than..." ;-) In all seriousness, while it may be true that "knowledge of formal grammar is [not] necessary to be a good writer", it is undeniable that better grammarians make better writers, all other things being equal. That is to say, content presented with bad grammar is less easy/ interesting/enjoyable to read than the same content written "correctly" -- and the content is therefore less effective at accomplishing its main purpose, which is communication. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing Lilypond's "grammar?" Ah, Cheers! Stan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Graham, I bet that there's less than a hundred people You mean "I bet there are fewer than..." ;-) In all seriousness, while it may be true that "knowledge of formal grammar is [not] necessary to be a good writer", it is undeniable that better grammarians make better writers, all other things being equal. That is to say, content presented with bad grammar is less easy/ interesting/enjoyable to read than the same content written "correctly" -- and the content is therefore less effective at accomplishing its main purpose, which is communication. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:23:08 -0500 "Palmer, Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -- > > My copy of The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, Fourth Edition, > (1996), under "Problems with that, which, and who?" says, > Understand that both essential (restrictive) and > nonessential (nonrestrictive) clauses may begin with which. A clause > introduced by that will almost always be essential. No commas are used > around such clauses. . . . Context and punctuation, however, determine > whether a which clause is essential or nonessential. If the clause is > essential, no commas separate it from the rest of the sentence; if > nonessential, commas enclose the clause. (Emphasis in the original.) Interesting! I must admit that I found nothing objectionable with the "which"es that Kurt suggested replacing with "that"... actually, in a few cases, I thought that "which" sounded better. But I've always avoided learning anything about grammar[1], so I didn't mind replacing them. [1] As a native English speaker, I don't see the point -- I can speak and write perfectly well without knowing any formal rules of grammar. Actually, when I started learning Japanese, I was confused when the lesson was talking about "subject" and "object", and had to look it up. For anybody who thinks that knowledge of formal grammar is necessary to be a good writer, I have a challenge: sit down and write the complete rule for pluralization in English. At a minimum, what is the general rule which tells you how to pluralize "foot" and "boot"? I bet that there's less than a hundred people on the planet who could formalize anything approaching a complete rule for English pluralization... yet millions of people can do it perfectly, recognize and correct mistakes, etc. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
Greetings - Kurt wrote: -- Generally -- "which" and "that" have specific uses that we aren't observing very well. "That" introduces a restrictive subclause and should not be preceded by a comma. Removing this clause changes the meaning of the sentence, usually by making it more general. On the other hand, "which" introduces an informative (but non-restrictive) subclause and should be preceded by a comma. I replaced which with that below (and in my preceding email) where the following clause was restrictive and couldn't be removed without generalizing the meaning of the sentence. -- My copy of The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, Fourth Edition, (1996), under "Problems with that, which, and who?" says, Understand that both essential (restrictive) and nonessential (nonrestrictive) clauses may begin with which. A clause introduced by that will almost always be essential. No commas are used around such clauses. . . . Context and punctuation, however, determine whether a which clause is essential or nonessential. If the clause is essential, no commas separate it from the rest of the sentence; if nonessential, commas enclose the clause. (Emphasis in the original.) That being said, I am not opposed to trying to maintain consistency. Ralph + Ralph Palmer, CEM Energy/Administrative Coordinator Keene State College Keene, NH 03435-2502 Phone: 603-358-2230 Cell: 603-209-2903 Fax: 603-358-2456 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:43:19 -0800 Kurt Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Page 9, antepenultimate paragraph (missed this in my first go-round) > -- "For example, when entering music that [not which] begins on a > notated E (concert D) [moved this section up] for a B-flat trumpet, > one could write ..." Disagree; the most important part of this situation is the B-flat trumpet. I changed the that/which, though. > Same page, first sentence of the second paragraph in "Selected > snippets" -- delete the comma after octavation: "or the octavation > does not in ..." > > Ditto, third sentence -- change litotes to a positive statement > (unless the litotes is incorrect and the sentence should be > negative): "The clefOctavation value would normally be set to 7, -7, > 15 or -15, but other values are valid." > > Page 13 -- "end of the previous line is [not in] not required ..." Not my department. If you look at the Snippets -> Pitches page, you'll see all these things collected together, along with the file names. Could you collect all these language corrections in the snippets, along with the filenames, to Valentin? > Page 22, "Selected snippets" -- "... every pitch in the twelve-tone > [removed extra space, changed note to tone] scale ..." for V. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 1 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
When I haven't commented on something, it means I took your suggestion. On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:26:22 -0800 Kurt Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, the titles of the following subsections should be > considered. They are "Writing pitches", "Changing multiple > pitches" (but see below), and "Displaying pitches", respectively. So > perhaps the phrase above should be further changed to "writing, > changing, and displaying." IMO, writing pitches etc. sound better. However, I want to provide a hint about how lilypond processes pitches, by making a reference to normal computer usage: data input, computation, result output. > On page 6 -- "Known issues and warnings" -- "There are no generally > accepted standards for denoting three-quarter flats ..." So there > are generally accepted standards for denoting one-quarter flats? Or > should this read "There are no generally accepted standards for > denoting quarter-tone accidentals ..." I'm not certain about this, but the "accidental" text is more general and covers us more, so I took it. :) > Same page, header of section 1.1.2 -- Should be "Changing pitches" to > parallel the headers of the other subsections. I want to emphasize that transposition affects more than one pitch. I'm not totally against changing the section name this way, but I'd want more discussion first. > Same page, "Transpose" section -- a technical question about the > \transpose syntax: are frompitch and topitch relative or absolute? > Would it be useful to include that information? Absolute. I can't see it making a huge difference, but I added it. > On page 10, first paragraph -- In that case, "Double > accidentals ..." What is this sentence quoting? Perhaps it should > just be integrated into the sentence. It's explaining the rules for a minimum number of accidentals. I agree that the quotes are a bit weird... anyway, since this is a selected snippet, it's not my department. > Ditto, in line 4 (a comment) of the Scheme code -- "alteration, a, in > quarter-tone [hyphenated] ..." Ditto, not my department. Could you fix these in LSR? Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On 2/2/08 5:26 PM, "Kurt Kroon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/26/08 9:28 PM, "Graham Percival" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches. Please note that this >> is our "demonstration" chapter, which will form the guidelines for >> the rest of the NR. So if there's anything that you don't like >> about the general layout and policies of this section, please >> speak up now, before the entire NR is changed to match. >> >> Read it online, download the pdf, print it out and read on a bus with a >> red pen in hand... please review it any way that suits you. :) I'll >> wait a week before declaring this section "perfect". > More observations -- where appropriate, I've indicated my changes in [square brackets]: Generally -- "which" and "that" have specific uses that we aren't observing very well. "That" introduces a restrictive subclause and should not be preceded by a comma. Removing this clause changes the meaning of the sentence, usually by making it more general. On the other hand, "which" introduces an informative (but non-restrictive) subclause and should be preceded by a comma. I replaced which with that below (and in my preceding email) where the following clause was restrictive and couldn't be removed without generalizing the meaning of the sentence. And here's the continued list of my specific observations --- Page 9, antepenultimate paragraph (missed this in my first go-round) -- "For example, when entering music that [not which] begins on a notated E (concert D) [moved this section up] for a B-flat trumpet, one could write ..." Page 12 -- the list of predefined clefs is not very systematic. I suggest putting them in this order, which is based on putting middle C on the next higher line: Clef name Position of middle C french 2 ledger lines below the staff treble 1 ledger line below the staff soprano bottom staff line mezzosopranosecond staff line altothird staff line tenor fourth staff line baritonefifth staff line (C clef) varbaritone fifth staff line (F clef) bass1 ledger line above the staff subbass 2 ledger lines above the staff percussion N/A tab N/A The preceding example could be rewritten to show this visually: \clef french c2 c \clef treble c2 c \clef soprano c2 c \clef mezzosoprano c2 c \clef alto c2 c \clef tenor c2 c \clef baritone c2 c \clef varbaritone c2 c \clef bass c2 c \clef subbass c2 c Same page, first sentence of the second paragraph in "Selected snippets" -- delete the comma after octavation: "or the octavation does not in ..." Ditto, third sentence -- change litotes to a positive statement (unless the litotes is incorrect and the sentence should be negative): "The clefOctavation value would normally be set to 7, -7, 15 or -15, but other values are valid." Page 13 -- "end of the previous line is [not in] not required ..." Page 14 -- Unlike the clefs, the order of the modes is systematic, but based on a descending scale. If you accept my suggestion of clefs above, please consider ordering the modes in ascending sequence as well, namely: Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, Locrian. Page 16 -- last line "so an instrument that [not which] produces a real sound ..." Page 18, under "Automatic accidentals" -- "LilyPond provides a function to specify which [delete such because it's awkward] accidental style " Same page, same section, next paragraph -- "Optionally, the function can take a second argument that [not which] determines in which ..." Page 20, second section of "modern" section -- "It prints the same accidentals as default, with two exceptions that [not which] serve to ..." Page 22, "Selected snippets" -- "... every pitch in the twelve-tone [removed extra space, changed note to tone] scale ..." Page 23, "Ambitus", second sentence in second paragraph -- "... two note heads that represent the lowest and highest [less awkward than minimum and maximum] pitches." Okey dokey, that's enough for now. Kurt ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Part 1 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On 1/26/08 9:28 PM, "Graham Percival" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches. Please note that this > is our "demonstration" chapter, which will form the guidelines for > the rest of the NR. So if there's anything that you don't like > about the general layout and policies of this section, please > speak up now, before the entire NR is changed to match. > > Read it online, download the pdf, print it out and read on a bus with a > red pen in hand... please review it any way that suits you. :) I'll > wait a week before declaring this section "perfect". I hope I'm not too late with my observations. The page numbers refer to the PDF. My changes are explained in [square brackets], which shouldn't be included in the content. On page 1 -- parallel construction -- the introductory phrase in 1.1 says "There are three steps to this process: input, modifying, and output." These three items should use the same word form, viz., "input, modification, and output", or "inputting, modifying, and outputting". Of course, the titles of the following subsections should be considered. They are "Writing pitches", "Changing multiple pitches" (but see below), and "Displaying pitches", respectively. So perhaps the phrase above should be further changed to "writing, changing, and displaying." On page 2 -- the second part of the second bullet in the list under "Relative octave entry" should read "... relative [deleted ly] to the pitch calculated without an [added an] octave mark." On page 3 -- Paragraph in the middle of the page, the second sentence should read "Inside [deleted of] chords, the next note is always relative to the preceding one." Same page -- the second sentence of the last paragraph should read "Therefore, and E-double-sharp [deleted extra "sharp"] following a B will be placed higher, while an F-double-flat will [replaced would with will to parallel the verb form used above] be placed lower." On page 5 -- "Accidentals are only printed on tied notes that [not which] begin a new system:" On page 6 -- "Known issues and warnings" -- "There are no generally accepted standards for denoting three-quarter flats ..." So there are generally accepted standards for denoting one-quarter flats? Or should this read "There are no generally accepted standards for denoting quarter-tone accidentals ..." Same page, next section -- "include the language-specific [hyphenated] init file. For example, [added] to use English note names [end added] add \include ..." Ditto, below first table -- "The note names for quarter-tones [hyphenated] ..." On page 7 -- the block beginning "In Dutch, aes is contracted to ..." and ending just before the See also really belongs after the first table (before the section on quarter-tones). Same page, header of section 1.1.2 -- Should be "Changing pitches" to parallel the headers of the other subsections. Someone's already pointed out the transposition typo, so I'll move along. On page 8 -- the definition of "pass" is "not fail", therefore the phrase "passes without fail" is redundant. It should be "passes" or "does not fail", depending on what should be emphasized. Same page, "Transpose" section -- a technical question about the \transpose syntax: are frompitch and topitch relative or absolute? Would it be useful to include that information? On page 9, middle of the page -- "... both \transpose c cis or \transpose c des will transpose up a semitone [instead of 'half a tone'] On page 10, first paragraph -- In that case, "Double accidentals ..." What is this sentence quoting? Perhaps it should just be integrated into the sentence. Ditto, in line 4 (a comment) of the Scheme code -- "alteration, a, in quarter-tone [hyphenated] ..." On page 11, "Known issues and warnings", just before section 1.1.3 -- "... since \relative has [present tense to match the rest of the sentence] no effect ..." To be continued ... Kurtis ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:47:04 -0800 (PST) till <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Percival-2 wrote: > > By default, texinfo does not indent the first paragraph and > > indents all others; we need to specifically override this default > > behavior for the "strongly related" material. > > Well, I stumbled about this also but thought that it is indeed on > purpose as you said. Writing in Latex I have the habit to enclose > graphics, tables, and so on in the same paragraph -- that is I don't > insert a blank line in between. > In the guidelines for Doc writers to Lilypond this is called > "vertiacal compression" > for what ever reason. To me it just does what I want: that the next > paragraph doesn't > get indented. For what reason is there the "compression" mentioned? > Is it an issue in html? Otherwise I would suggest to insert > @lilypond/@example and so on > without surrounding blank lines, in that way we would easily get the > @noindent without > writing it out. lilypond-book automatically adds a bunch of blank lines; compressing the material in the .itely file doesn't change the output, it just makes the doc source harder to read. Sorry, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
Graham Percival-2 wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:27:24 +0100 > "Kess Vargavind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> FORMATTING >> A small thing that nevertheless greatly would aid me in reading the >> manual: >> >> Paragraphs coming directly after a header is correctly non-indented. >> Where the problem lies; after illustrations, boxes and tables the >> paragraphs are indented. Now, I know there are different styles of >> formatting, and all I wish of you is to think whether this is >> intentional, if you want it this way. ;) Me, I would be singing hymns >> of joy if those latter paragraphs where unindented as well (a >> paragraph following another should be indented of course). > > Hmm. This _is_ deliberate, although I make no claim that it's > ideal: the current practice is that if the material below an > example is strongly related to the example, we *do not* indent > that paragraph. For example, see 1.1.2 Transpose "Note that we > specify..." > > By default, texinfo does not indent the first paragraph and > indents all others; we need to specifically override this default > behavior for the "strongly related" material. > > To be honest, I would rather not change this policy; we'd need to > manually add @noindent after 95% of the lilypond examples, and I > don't think this change is worth that effort. (I'm also not > certain this is a big deal, especially since HTML doesn't indent > anything) > > That said, I'm willing to listen to counterarguments or more > discussion about this. And this is /exactly/ the kind of issue > that I want people to discuss right now -- if there's any general > formatting issues, we need to settle them now. :) > Well, I stumbled about this also but thought that it is indeed on purpose as you said. Writing in Latex I have the habit to enclose graphics, tables, and so on in the same paragraph -- that is I don't insert a blank line in between. In the guidelines for Doc writers to Lilypond this is called "vertiacal compression" for what ever reason. To me it just does what I want: that the next paragraph doesn't get indented. For what reason is there the "compression" mentioned? Is it an issue in html? Otherwise I would suggest to insert @lilypond/@example and so on without surrounding blank lines, in that way we would easily get the @noindent without writing it out. Greetings Till -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GDP%3A-NR-1.1-Pitches--2008-01-26-tp15116174p15205121.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
2008/1/31, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:27:24 +0100 > "Kess Vargavind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > CONTENTS > > Note names in other languages (last paragraph): > > > > "For both historical reasons and a greater simplicity, LilyPond uses a > > single 's' for all these languages." > > > > I'm not really sure what's intended with that sentence, to me it > > sounds like that I'm unable to write "cess" or "ciss" with > > svenska.ly, which is not the case. Is the intended meaning somewhere > > along the lines of "...LilyPond uses a single 's' in the default > > syntax"? > > Interesting... that paragraph directly contradicts the table > above, which shows that ciss is accepted in Norweigen and Swedish. > Either something changed since that sentence was written (since > the sentence is at least 5 years old, this is quite possible), or > it meant to say what you propose. Err... IIRC I wrote this sentence myself a couple of weeks ago (commit c67976de78a86699e8274411a7ed2fe825d91a6e), after a discussion with Mats and Rune: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-01/msg00447.html > Either way, it appears that the paragraph is pointless and > potentially confusing. Anybody object if I delete it? I don't care since I use italiano.ly :) Indeed, I think this is just confusing and too verbose. Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:27:24 +0100 "Kess Vargavind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CONTENTS > Note names in other languages (last paragraph): > > "For both historical reasons and a greater simplicity, LilyPond uses a > single 's' for all these languages." > > I'm not really sure what's intended with that sentence, to me it > sounds like that I'm unable to write "cess" or "ciss" with > svenska.ly, which is not the case. Is the intended meaning somewhere > along the lines of "...LilyPond uses a single 's' in the default > syntax"? Interesting... that paragraph directly contradicts the table above, which shows that ciss is accepted in Norweigen and Swedish. Either something changed since that sentence was written (since the sentence is at least 5 years old, this is quite possible), or it meant to say what you propose. Either way, it appears that the paragraph is pointless and potentially confusing. Anybody object if I delete it? > FORMATTING > A small thing that nevertheless greatly would aid me in reading the > manual: > > Paragraphs coming directly after a header is correctly non-indented. > Where the problem lies; after illustrations, boxes and tables the > paragraphs are indented. Now, I know there are different styles of > formatting, and all I wish of you is to think whether this is > intentional, if you want it this way. ;) Me, I would be singing hymns > of joy if those latter paragraphs where unindented as well (a > paragraph following another should be indented of course). Hmm. This _is_ deliberate, although I make no claim that it's ideal: the current practice is that if the material below an example is strongly related to the example, we *do not* indent that paragraph. For example, see 1.1.2 Transpose "Note that we specify..." By default, texinfo does not indent the first paragraph and indents all others; we need to specifically override this default behavior for the "strongly related" material. To be honest, I would rather not change this policy; we'd need to manually add @noindent after 95% of the lilypond examples, and I don't think this change is worth that effort. (I'm also not certain this is a big deal, especially since HTML doesn't indent anything) That said, I'm willing to listen to counterarguments or more discussion about this. And this is /exactly/ the kind of issue that I want people to discuss right now -- if there's any general formatting issues, we need to settle them now. :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
This section/chapter looks much better than it does in the current manual. Many thanks from a musically inadept Lilypond beginner. CONTENTS Note names in other languages (last paragraph): "For both historical reasons and a greater simplicity, LilyPond uses a single 's' for all these languages." I'm not really sure what's intended with that sentence, to me it sounds like that I'm unable to write "cess" or "ciss" with svenska.ly, which is not the case. Is the intended meaning somewhere along the lines of "...LilyPond uses a single 's' in the default syntax"? FORMATTING A small thing that nevertheless greatly would aid me in reading the manual: Paragraphs coming directly after a header is correctly non-indented. Where the problem lies; after illustrations, boxes and tables the paragraphs are indented. Now, I know there are different styles of formatting, and all I wish of you is to think whether this is intentional, if you want it this way. ;) Me, I would be singing hymns of joy if those latter paragraphs where unindented as well (a paragraph following another should be indented of course). Thanks for all the work, Kess ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
2008/1/30, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Valentin, this is yours:
> {transposing-pitches-with-minimum-accidentals-smart-transpose.ly}
Thanks Mark, updated :)
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:00:05 +
Mark Knoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches.
>
> Just a couple of things:
>
> = Octave checks =
Thanks, updated!
> = Transpose =
> == Selected snippets ==
>
> The feature request quote should be consistent in its reference to
> sharps and flats. Perhaps:
>
> "Double accidentals should be removed, as well as E-sharp (= F),
> B-sharp (= C), C-flat (= B), F-flat (= E)."
>
> Otherwise, it all looks very good.
Valentin, this is yours:
{transposing-pitches-with-minimum-accidentals-smart-transpose.ly}
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
Graham Percival wrote:
Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches.
Just a couple of things:
= Octave checks =
"To check the octave of a specific note, add = quotes after the pitch."
perhaps better:
"To check the octave of a individual note, specify the absolute octave
with the = symbol."
And perhaps the example should include the note duration so it's clear
where the = has to go.
\relative c'' {
c2 d='4 d
e2 f
}
There's also a spelling mistake in the next paragraph:
s/contorlpitch/controlpitch/
= Transpose =
== Selected snippets ==
The feature request quote should be consistent in its reference to
sharps and flats. Perhaps:
"Double accidentals should be removed, as well as E-sharp (= F), B-sharp
(= C), C-flat (= B), F-flat (= E)."
Otherwise, it all looks very good.
--
Mark Knoop
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches. Please note that this is our "demonstration" chapter, which will form the guidelines for the rest of the NR. So if there's anything that you don't like about the general layout and policies of this section, please speak up now, before the entire NR is changed to match. Read it online, download the pdf, print it out and read on a bus with a red pen in hand... please review it any way that suits you. :) I'll wait a week before declaring this section "perfect". GDP website: http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/ Two caveats about the "if there's anything you don't like..." - I don't need to hear about anything that's already on the technical todo list: http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/todo/technical-todo.txt - I don't (personally) need to know about any problems in the "selected snippets" sections. Those are generated from LSR, so they're community-maintained. Send complaints to Valentin. Or this mailist in general. (that said, if you object to this method of generating the docs, speak up... not that I'm likely to change this now, but go ahead and speak up anyway) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
