Re: Building blocks request for review

[Urs Liska]

Am 12.07.2013 00:35, schrieb Thomas Morley:
> 2013/7/11 Urs Liska <address@hidden>:
> > Am 11.07.2013 23:19, schrieb Thomas Morley:
> [...]
> > > Please use 2.16-syntax, if you declare \version "2.16.2" in
> > > building-blocks-start.ly
> > > or change the version.
> > Hm, actually I thought about that.
> > I never used 2.16 so it would mean an artificial effort to 'backport' to
> > that version. But I always thought that for writing tutorials or similar
> > documents it would be advisable to use stable versions.
> > What would you think? Of course using the versions I'm used to is much more
> > practical ...
> There's currently only one command
> \override Beam.stencil = ##f
> with a conflict of 2.16. and 2.17.
> Why not use old syntax, still working with 2.17:
> \override Beam #'stencil = ##f
> ?
> Would compile with 2.16. _and_ 2.17
I would have done that if your fantastic non-beaming function wouldn't 
have made that command obsolete completely :-)
> [...]
> > > Move \numericTimeSignature into \layout { \context { \DrumStaff ... } }
> > dito
> Probably better to use \numericTimeSignature in a Staff-context
> \layout { \context { \Staff ... } }
Done.

BTW: All your (or others') feedback will directly benefit our common 
cause because it will go into a blog post  which will probably be a 
striking demonstration of LilyPond's power ;-)
You may preview the current state to get an impression at 
http://lilypondblog.org/?p=912&preview=1&_ppp=6c25cb2c23

Best
Urs