Re: doc work

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:01:18 -0400
Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> wrote:

> The template for the string quartet with parts (A.3.2) unnecessarily  
> deals with multiple files ___ everything the template is supposed to  
> accomplish can be done "more simply" in a single file, either using  
> \pageBreak between \score blocks (for single-PDF output), or by  
> wrapping each score in a \book (for multiple-PDF output).
> 
> Any objections to me making this a one-file template?
> I'm considering including both examples (single-PDF and multiple-PDF  
> output), so that users can choose.

If I'm not mistaken, putting them in \book results in
foo.pdf    (main score)
foo-0.pdf   (1st violin)
foo-1.pdf   (2nd violin)
foo-2.pdf   (viola)
foo-3.pdf   (cello)

Is that really preferable to separate files, where you can give
the .ly files (and therefore the .pdfs) sensible names?

I don't mind changing this in theory, but I'm really not certain
it would be an improvement.  That said, perhaps the template
should just show a string quartet score; people wanting to create
separate parts can read the appropriate section of the LM.
(and if we *don't* have an appropriate section of the LM -- and I
can't see such an example under 3.4 -- then this should be a TODO)

> p.s. In the spirit of the "Inspirational Headwords", does anyone
> else think that these templates should be "real music"?  =)

No.  If people want "real music" as templates, there's 1000 scores
in Mutopia.  I don't want tutorial-newbies trying to figure out
what parts of a real piece to delete in order to get a basic
template.


BTW, I hope that you know that you'll be modifying these templates
in LSR.  Consult with Valentin over whether you should become an
editor, or just use the "clone+edit" method.
... err, also consult with him as to when LSR might be online
again.

Other than "piano centered dynamics template"; that needs to be
handled separately.

Cheers,
- Graham