Re: GDP: NR Specification
Eyolf Østrem wrote:
On 08.11.2007 (15:44), Graham Percival wrote:
Based on the recent discussions, what should change in the written policy?
I'd say: the following sentence:
However, they should be familiar with the material in the Learning
Manual (particularly ``Fundamental Concepts''), so do not repeat
that material in this book. Also, you should assume that users
Huh. On first reading, that looks exactly opposite of what I intended
to say...
... oh wait, I remember now! I was trying to say don't explain that
{}() don't need to be nested... or that you can make a \new Staff{}
wherever you want... or that you can define variables ... etc.
Fundamental concepts should be explained in the NR also, but in a different
style than in the LM: in the NR in a precise, technical man page-like way,
in the LM in a tutorial style. There should not be *information* in the LM
which is not also available from the NR, it should just be presented
differently.
Agreed... ok, I guess I'd better do this sooner rather than later. I'll
add a NR 3 that discusses the same stuff as LM 2-3. Then the policy can
say assume that readers are familiar with the material in NR 3.
It might seem a bit weird to assume that people know NR 3 when they're
reading NR 1, but I think we should start the NR with notation stuff,
not basic lilypond is whitespace-insensitive-type stuff.
Cheers.
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR Specification
On 08.11.2007 (15:44), Graham Percival wrote: Based on the recent discussions, what should change in the written policy? I'd say: the following sentence: However, they should be familiar with the material in the Learning Manual (particularly ``Fundamental Concepts''), so do not repeat that material in this book. Also, you should assume that users Fundamental concepts should be explained in the NR also, but in a different style than in the LM: in the NR in a precise, technical man page-like way, in the LM in a tutorial style. There should not be *information* in the LM which is not also available from the NR, it should just be presented differently. Eyolf -- Sometimes I indulge myself in safaris which no other being may take. I strike inward along the axis of my memories. Like a schoolchild reporting on a vacation trip, I take up my subject. Let it be . . . female intellectuals! I course backward into the ocean which is my ancestors. I am a great winged fish in the depths. The mouth of my awareness opens and I scoop them up! Sometimes... sometimes I hunt out specific persons recorded in our histories. What a private joy to relive the life of such a one while I mock the academic pretentions which supposedly formed a biography. -- The Stolen Journals ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: NR Specification
Trevor Daniels wrote: I do too. I wonder if it might be useful to discuss and find a consensus on what the purpose of the NR is in rather more detail? Here's a strawman specification to knock about if people think a specification might be useful to guide documentation writers in the future. Let do this in a slightly different manner. Here's what the policy current says: * Notation Reference: a (hopefully complete) description of LilyPond input notation. Some material from here may be duplicated in the Learning Manual (for teaching). The material is presented in an approximate order of increasing difficulty, but the goal is _not_ to provide a step-by-step learning environment. For example, all material under Pitches should remain in that section, even though microtonal accidentals may seem more advanced than info about clefs or time signatures -- Pitches should be a one-stop reference about the pitch portion of notes. This section is written in formal technical writing style. Users are not expected to read this manual from start to finish. However, they should be familiar with the material in the Learning Manual (particularly ``Fundamental Concepts''), so do not repeat that material in this book. Also, you should assume that users know what the notation means; explaining musical concepts happens in the Music Glossary. Based on the recent discussions, what should change in the written policy? Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
