|
|
Created:
10 years, 12 months ago by janek Modified:
10 years, 11 months ago CC:
lilypond-devel_gnu.org Visibility:
Public. |
Descriptiondoc: explain how to add lyrics to polyphonic sections (issue 3236)
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 4
Patch Set 2 : reduce as Trevor suggested #Patch Set 3 : fix typo #
Total comments: 2
Patch Set 4 : nitpicks #
Total comments: 5
Patch Set 5 : correct references #
Total comments: 4
Patch Set 6 : remove space #MessagesTotal messages: 28
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.it... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1632: cadence, or a measure or two. The @code{<< {...} \\ {...} >>} @code{<<@{...@} \\ @{...@} >>} ?
Sign in to reply to this message.
This expresses pretty much what already appears under Temporary polyphonic passages in Section 1.5.2 of the NR, although using rather more words. It should not be repeated here. By all means replace it with a reference to the appropriate part of 1.5.2. The reason is as usual - the NR is already too long. We must not repeat material, or expand it beyond what is the minimum required to give the user the _reference_ information. Trevor
Sign in to reply to this message.
Typo https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.it... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1637: contexts} which will result in @emph{no lyrcis} being set for @emph{no lyrics}
Sign in to reply to this message.
A proposal: given that no other section of 1.5.2 mentions lyrics, perhaps using my submission (or the original at 1.5.2) for temporary polyphonic context at 2.1.2 is a better option, with a link at 1.5.2 to 2.1.2? Anyone setting multi-voice music and using the examples at 1.5.2 can easily use the double backslash construct as well as a temporary polyphonic context. The double backslash construct is very problematic for those writing choral music which will almost always have lyrics. The temporary polyphonic context saves *much* time and ugly code. It seems better to put it where people engraving choral music would look for it. That is really the reason for my submission -- to put something where people will naturally think it would be (which is where *I* looked for it :-)
Sign in to reply to this message.
The section at 1.5.2 on Single-staff polyphony forms a unified whole and needs to remain as it is. However, I'd be happy to see the first paragraph of the patch inserted at the end of Divisi lyrics in 2.1.2 followed by a reference to the appropriate section in 1.5.2. It is important that information is not duplicated and maximum use is made of links. You might also consider inserting another link to 1.5.2 in References for choral, since this technique will most often be required in choral music. Trevor
Sign in to reply to this message.
reduce as Trevor suggested
Sign in to reply to this message.
fix typo
Sign in to reply to this message.
Changed as suggested. Janek https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.it... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1632: cadence, or a measure or two. The @code{<< {...} \\ {...} >>} On 2013/04/04 21:38:15, J_lowe wrote: > @code{<<@{...@} \\ @{...@} >>} > > ? Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.it... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1637: contexts} which will result in @emph{no lyrcis} being set for On 2013/04/05 06:58:21, Jean-Charles wrote: > @emph{no lyrics} Done.
Sign in to reply to this message.
A couple of minor suggestions, otherwise LGTM Thanks, Janek! Trevor https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/voca... File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1632: cadence, or a measure or two. The @code{<< @{...@} \\ @{...@} >>} "or for a measure or two" and use @dots{} rather than ...
Sign in to reply to this message.
nitpicks
Sign in to reply to this message.
done. https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/voca... File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1632: cadence, or a measure or two. The @code{<< @{...@} \\ @{...@} >>} On 2013/04/09 21:26:38, Trevor Daniels wrote: > "or for a measure or two" > and > use @dots{} rather than ... Done.
Sign in to reply to this message.
fails make https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages}. Fails make "Cross reference to nonexistent node `Temporary polyphonic passages' (perhaps incorrect sectioning?)" In your commit you have @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages} This doesn't work because 'Temporary polyphonic passages' is a subsubsubheading (git grep "Temporary polyphonic") and you cannot @ref{} those (I think) https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:2195: @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages}. @ref{...} see note above
Sign in to reply to this message.
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages}. On 2013/04/10 03:25:30, J_lowe wrote: > Fails make > > "Cross reference to nonexistent node `Temporary polyphonic passages' (perhaps > incorrect sectioning?)" > > In your commit you have > > @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages} > > This doesn't work because 'Temporary polyphonic passages' is a subsubsubheading > > (git grep "Temporary polyphonic") > > and you cannot @ref{} those (I think) Hmm, so i'd have to ref "Single-staff polyphony" which is a @node?
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2013/04/10 06:50:59, janek wrote: > https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... > File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... > Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages}. > On 2013/04/10 03:25:30, J_lowe wrote: > > Fails make > > > > "Cross reference to nonexistent node `Temporary polyphonic passages' (perhaps > > incorrect sectioning?)" > > > > In your commit you have > > > > @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages} > > > > This doesn't work because 'Temporary polyphonic passages' is a > subsubsubheading > > > > (git grep "Temporary polyphonic") > > > > and you cannot @ref{} those (I think) > > Hmm, so i'd have to ref "Single-staff polyphony" which is a @node? Texinfo comes with a manual. You can either reference a @node or an @anchor.
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2013/04/10 06:50:59, janek wrote: > Hmm, so i'd have to ref "Single-staff polyphony" which is a @node? Yes. In this situation we usually write something like, "See Temporary polyphonic passages in Single-staff polyphony" (with correct texinfo markup of course). The different headings and their properties are described in the CG - see section 5.3.3 "Sectioning commands". Trevor
Sign in to reply to this message.
correct references
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2013/04/10 07:06:47, dak wrote: > On 2013/04/10 06:50:59, janek wrote: > > Hmm, so i'd have to ref "Single-staff polyphony" > > which is a @node? > > Texinfo comes with a manual. You can either reference > a @node or an @anchor. Indeed, there's something about this in http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/contributor/syntax-survey#cro... I've read this, but i didn't pay enough attention because i'm in a hurry. Sorry for that. Janek https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages}. On 2013/04/10 03:25:30, J_lowe wrote: > Fails make > > "Cross reference to nonexistent node `Temporary polyphonic passages' (perhaps > incorrect sectioning?)" > > In your commit you have > > @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages} > > This doesn't work because 'Temporary polyphonic passages' is a subsubsubheading > > (git grep "Temporary polyphonic") > > and you cannot @ref{} those (I think) Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:2195: @ref{Temporary polyphonic passages}. On 2013/04/10 03:25:30, J_lowe wrote: > @ref{...} see note above Done.
Sign in to reply to this message.
nearly there https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/voca... File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @emph {Temporary polyphonic passages} in @ref{Single-staff polyphony}. space between @emph and braces causes make fail. @emph{Temp... not @emph {Temp... https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:2195: @emph {Temporary polyphonic passages} @emph with space before braces causes make fail - see above.
Sign in to reply to this message.
remove space
Sign in to reply to this message.
bang. that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax :) I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was a simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the maintenance... https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/voca... File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @emph {Temporary polyphonic passages} in @ref{Single-staff polyphony}. On 2013/04/10 10:40:59, J_lowe wrote: > space between @emph and braces causes make fail. > > @emph{Temp... > > not > > @emph {Temp... Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/voca... Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:2195: @emph {Temporary polyphonic passages} On 2013/04/10 10:40:59, J_lowe wrote: > @emph with space before braces causes make fail - see above. Done.
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2013/04/10 10:45:29, janek wrote: > bang. > that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax :) > > I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was a simple > doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the maintenance... You _are_ aware that a simple "make" will check the Texinfo syntax of the docs, just not the syntax of any embedded LilyPond example?
Sign in to reply to this message.
2013/4/10 <dak@gnu.org>: > On 2013/04/10 10:45:29, janek wrote: >> >> bang. >> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax :) > > You _are_ aware that a simple "make" will check the Texinfo syntax of > the docs, just not the syntax of any embedded LilyPond example? No, i wasn't - silly me...
Sign in to reply to this message.
> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax > :) Tsk tsk tsk. > I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was > a simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the > maintenance... And you think that wrong Wiki syntax (which you eventually also have to learn) leads to better non-HTML output? Werner
Sign in to reply to this message.
2013/4/10 Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>: > >> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax >> :) > > Tsk tsk tsk. > >> I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was >> a simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the >> maintenance... > > And you think that wrong Wiki syntax (which you eventually also have > to learn) leads to better non-HTML output? Of course not! But when i'm editing Wikipedia, i have syntax buttons next to me, and i can preview changes without waiting more than a few seconds. I don't mean that we should abandon Texinfo or something. I'm just saying that it's a hindrance for me, and the result is that i don't like to write docs. best, Janek
Sign in to reply to this message.
Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes: > 2013/4/10 Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>: >> >>> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax >>> :) >> >> Tsk tsk tsk. >> >>> I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was >>> a simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the >>> maintenance... >> >> And you think that wrong Wiki syntax (which you eventually also have >> to learn) leads to better non-HTML output? > > Of course not! But when i'm editing Wikipedia, i have syntax buttons > next to me, and i can preview changes without waiting more than a few > seconds. Maybe you should try using Emacs as an editor. It has menus and buttons for writing Texinfo, and if you do make, you can use C-u C-h i for directly viewing the generated info files within Emacs (in case they do compile) without images. "make info" is the expensive version including images, but it tends to be affordable after you got the initial run behind you. > I don't mean that we should abandon Texinfo or something. I'm just > saying that it's a hindrance for me, and the result is that i don't > like to write docs. Perhaps you should get a Texinfo-aware editor. -- David Kastrup
Sign in to reply to this message.
> But when i'm editing Wikipedia, i have syntax buttons next to me, > and i can preview changes without waiting more than a few seconds. As David has said, makeinfo called via `make' does the syntax checks for you, and with the `info' program (or the Emacs editor) you can see the resulting changes to the docs immediately. > I don't mean that we should abandon Texinfo or something. I'm just > saying that it's a hindrance for me, and the result is that i don't > like to write docs. I rather suspect that you are not used to it... Werner
Sign in to reply to this message.
2013/4/10 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> > > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes: > > Of course not! But when i'm editing Wikipedia, i have syntax buttons > > next to me, and i can preview changes without waiting more than a few > > seconds. > > Maybe you should try using Emacs as an editor. It has menus and buttons > for writing Texinfo, and if you do make, you can use C-u C-h i for > directly viewing the generated info files within Emacs (in case they do > compile) without images. "make info" is the expensive version including > images, but it tends to be affordable after you got the initial run > behind you. > > > I don't mean that we should abandon Texinfo or something. I'm just > > saying that it's a hindrance for me, and the result is that i don't > > like to write docs. > > Perhaps you should get a Texinfo-aware editor. 2013/4/10 Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>: > >> But when i'm editing Wikipedia, i have syntax buttons next to me, >> and i can preview changes without waiting more than a few seconds. > > As David has said, makeinfo called via `make' does the syntax checks > for you, and with the `info' program (or the Emacs editor) you can see > the resulting changes to the docs immediately. Thank you both. I'll consider this when i'll have significant amount of doc writing to do. >> I don't mean that we should abandon Texinfo or something. I'm just >> saying that it's a hindrance for me, and the result is that i don't >> like to write docs. > > I rather suspect that you are not used to it... Quite possible. best, Janek
Sign in to reply to this message.
|