-@c -*-texinfo-*-
+@c -*- coding: latin-1; mode: texinfo; -*-
@c This file is part of lilypond.tely
@node Introduction
@chapter Introduction
-LilyPond is a system for formatting music prettily. This chapter
-discusses the backgrounds of LilyPond. It explains the problem of
-printing music with computers, and our approach to solving those
-problems.
-
@menu
* Engraving::
ink. An image was formed by pressing paper to the plate. The
stamping and cutting was completely done by hand. Making a correction
was cumbersome, if possible at all, so the engraving had to be perfect
-in one go. Engraving was a highly specialized skill, a craftsman had
-to complete around ten years of practical training before he could be
-a master engraver.
+in one go. Engraving was a highly specialized skill; a craftsman had
+to complete around five years of training before earning the title of
+master engraver, and another five years of experience were
+necessary to become truly skilled.
Nowadays, all newly printed music is produced with computers. This
-has obvious advantages; prints are cheaper to make, editorial work can
-be delivered by email. Unfortunately, the pervasive use of computers
-has also decreased the graphical quality of scores. Computer
-printouts have a bland, mechanical look, which makes them unpleasant
-to play from.
+has obvious advantages; prints are cheaper to make, and editorial work
+can be delivered by email. Unfortunately, the pervasive use of
+computers has also decreased the graphical quality of scores.
+Computer printouts have a bland, mechanical look, which makes them
+unpleasant to play from.
@c introduce illustrating aspects of engraving, font...
The images below illustrate the difference between traditional
engraving and typical computer output, and the third picture shows how
LilyPond mimics the traditional look. The left picture shows a scan
-of a flat symbol from a Henle edition published in 2000. In the
-center show symbol from a hand engraved B@"{a}renreiter edition of the
+of a flat symbol from a Henle edition published in 2000. The center
+depicts a symbol from a hand-engraved B@"{a}renreiter edition of the
same music. The left scan illustrates typical flaws of computer
print: the staff lines are thin, the weight of the flat symbol matches
the light lines and it has a straight layout with sharp corners. By
@c introduce illustrating aspects of engraving, spacing...
In spacing, the distribution of space should reflect the durations
between notes. However, many modern scores adhere to the durations
-with mathematical precision, which leads to a poor result. In the
+with mathematical precision, which leads to poor results. In the
next example a motive is printed twice. It is printed once using
exact mathematical spacing, and once with corrections. Can you
spot which fragment is which?
@cindex optical spacing
-@quotation
-@lilypond[noindent]
-\score {
- \notes {
- \override Staff.NoteSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.6
- c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
- \stemDown b'4 e''4 a'4 e''4 | \bar "||"
- \override Staff.NoteSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.0
- \override Staff.StaffSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.0
- \stemBoth c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
- \stemDown b'4 e''4 a'4 e''4 |
- }
- \paper { raggedright = ##t }
+@lilypond[quote,noindent,fragment]
+{
+ \override Staff.NoteSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.6
+ c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
+ \stemDown b'4 e''4 a'4 e''4 | \bar "||"
+ \override Staff.NoteSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.0
+ \override Staff.StaffSpacing #'stem-spacing-correction = #0.0
+ \stemNeutral c'4 e''4 e'4 b'4 |
+ \stemDown b'4 e''4 a'4 e''4 |
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
@cindex regular rhythms
@cindex regular spacing
@cindex typography
Musicians are usually more absorbed with performing than with studying
-the looks of piece of music; nitpicking about typographical details
+the looks of piece of music, so nitpicking about typographical details
may seem academical. But it is not. In larger pieces with monotonous
rhythms, spacing corrections lead to subtle variations in the layout
of every line, giving each one a distinct visual signature. Without
-this signature all lines would look the same, they become like a
-labyrinth. If the musician looks away once or has a lapse in his
-concentration, he will be lost on the page.
-@c he/she
+this signature all lines would look the same, and they become like a
+labyrinth. If a musician looks away once or has a lapse in
+concentration, they might lose their place on the page.
Similarly, the strong visual look of bold symbols on heavy staff lines
stands out better when music is far away from reader, for example, if
This is a common characteristic of typography. Layout should be
pretty, not only for its own sake, but especially because it helps the
-reader in his task. For performance material like sheet music, this is
-doubly important: musicians have a limited amount of attention. The
+reader in her task. For performance material like sheet music, this is
+of double importance: musicians have a limited amount of attention. The
less attention they need for reading, the more they can focus on
playing itself. In other words, better typography translates to better
performances.
-Hopefully, these examples also demonstrate that music typography is an
-art that is subtle and complex, and to produce it requires
-considerable expertise, which musicians usually do not have. LilyPond
-is our effort to bring the graphical excellence of hand-engraved music
-to the computer age, and make it available to normal musicians. We
-have tuned our algorithms, font-designs, and program settings to
-produce prints that match the quality of the old editions we love to
-see and love to play from.
+These examples demonstrate that music typography is an art that is
+subtle and complex, and that producing it requires considerable
+expertise, which musicians usually do not have. LilyPond is our
+effort to bring the graphical excellence of hand-engraved music to the
+computer age, and make it available to normal musicians. We have
+tuned our algorithms, font-designs, and program settings to produce
+prints that match the quality of the old editions we love to see and
+love to play from.
write a program to take over their jobs?
The answer is: we cannot. Typography relies on human judgment of
-appearance, so people cannot be replaced ultimately. However, much of
+appearance, so people cannot be replaced completely. However, much of
the dull work can be automated. If LilyPond solves most of the common
situations correctly, this will be a huge improvement over existing
software. The remaining cases can be tuned by hand. Over the course
automatically, so manual overrides are less and less necessary.
When we started we wrote the LilyPond program entirely in the C++
-programming language, the program's functionality was set in stone by
+programming language; the program's functionality was set in stone by
the developers. That proved to be unsatisfactory for a number of
reasons:
@itemize @bullet
@item When LilyPond makes mistakes,
- users need to override formatting decisions. Therefore, the user
-must access to the formatting engine. Hence, rules and settings cannot
-be fixed by us at compile time, but they must be accessible for users
-at run-time.
+users need to override formatting decisions. Therefore, the user must
+have access to the formatting engine. Hence, rules and settings cannot
+be fixed by us at compile time but must be accessible for users at
+run-time.
@item Engraving is a matter of visual judgment, and therefore a matter of
taste. As knowledgeable as we are, users can disagree with our
personal decisions. Therefore, the definitions of typographical style
must also be accessible to the user.
-@item Finally, we continually refine the formatting algorithms, so we
+@item Finally, we continually refine the formatting algorithms, so we
need a flexible approach to rules. The C++ language forces a certain
method of grouping rules that do not match well with how music
notation works.
-
@end itemize
-These problems have been addressed by integrating the GUILE
-interpreter for the Scheme programming language and rewriting parts of
-LilyPond in Scheme. The new, flexible formatting is built around the
+These problems have been addressed by integrating an interpreter for
+the Scheme programming language and rewriting parts of LilyPond in
+Scheme. The current formatting architecture is built around the
notion of graphical objects, described by Scheme variables and
functions. This architecture encompasses formatting rules,
typographical style and individual formatting decisions. The user has
have all directions down (or left). The second chord has all
directions up (right).
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright,relative=1]
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright,relative=1,fragment]
\new Score \with {
- \override SpacingSpanner #'spacing-increment = #3
- \override TimeSignature #'transparent = ##t
- } {
- \stemDown <e g b>4_>-\arpeggio
- \override Arpeggio #'direction = #RIGHT
- \stemUp <e g b>4^>-\arpeggio
+ \override SpacingSpanner #'spacing-increment = #3
+ \override TimeSignature #'transparent = ##t
+} {
+ \stemDown <e g b>4_>-\arpeggio
+ \override Arpeggio #'direction = #RIGHT
+ \stemUp <e g b>4^>-\arpeggio
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
+@noindent
The process of formatting a score consists of reading and writing the
-variables of graphical objects.
-
-Some variables have a preset value. For example, the thickness of many
-lines---a characteristic of typographical style---are preset
-variables. Changing them gives a different typographical impression
-
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-fragment = \notes {
- \clef bass f8 as8
- c'4-~ c'16 as g f e16 g bes c' des'4
+variables of graphical objects. Some variables have a preset value. For
+example, the thickness of many lines -- a characteristic of typographical
+style -- is a variable with a preset value. You are free to alter this
+value, giving your score a different typographical impression.
+
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+fragment = {
+ \clef bass f8 as8
+ c'4-~ c'16 as g f e16 g bes c' des'4
}
-\score {
- <<
- \new Staff \fragment
- \new Staff \with {
+<<
+ \new Staff \fragment
+ \new Staff \with {
\override Beam #'thickness = #0.3
\override Stem #'thickness = #0.5
\override Bar #'thickness = #3.6
\override Tie #'thickness = #2.2
\override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #3.0
\override Tie #'extra-offset = #'(0 . 0.3)
- } \fragment
- >>
-}
+ }
+ \fragment
+>>
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
Formatting rules are also preset variables: each object has variables
-containing procedures. These procedure perform the actual formatting,
-and by substituting different ones, we can change behavior. In the
-following example, the rule that note head objects use to produce
-their symbol is changed during the music fragment
-
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
+containing procedures. These procedures perform the actual
+formatting, and by substituting different ones, we can change the
+appearance of objects. In the following example, the rule which note
+head objects use to produce their symbol is changed during the music
+fragment.
+
+@c FIXME: this example has errors:
+@c programming error: Grob `NoteHead' has no interface for property `text'
+@c Continuing; crossing fingers
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
#(define (mc-squared grob orig current)
(let ((interfaces (ly:grob-property grob 'interfaces))
(pos (ly:grob-property grob 'staff-position)))
((-2) (make-smaller-markup (make-bold-markup "2")))
(else (make-simple-markup "bla")))))))))
-\score {
- \notes \context Voice \relative c' {
- \stemUp
- \set autoBeaming = ##f
- \time 2/4
- <d f g>4
- \once \override NoteHead #'print-function = #Note_head::brew_ez_stencil
- <d f g>
- \once \override NoteHead #'style = #'cross
- <d f g>
- \applyoutput #mc-squared
- <d f g>
- <<
+\new Voice \relative c' {
+ \stemUp
+ \set autoBeaming = ##f
+ \time 2/4
+ <d f g>4
+ \once \override NoteHead #'print-function = #Note_head::brew_ez_stencil
+ <d f g>
+ \once \override NoteHead #'style = #'cross
+ <d f g>
+ \applyoutput #mc-squared
+ <d f g>
+ <<
{ d8[ es-( fis^^ g] fis2-) }
\repeat unfold 5 { \applyoutput #mc-squared s8 }
- >>
- }
+ >>
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
@cindex engraving
@cindex typography
-The formatting process in LilyPond decides where to place
+The formatting process decides where to place
symbols. However, this can only be done once it is decided @emph{what}
symbols should be printed, in other words what notation to use.
Common music notation is a system of recording music that has evolved
-over the past 1000 years. The form that is now in common use, dates
-from the early renaissance. Although, the basic form (i.e. note heads on a
+over the past 1000 years. The form that is now in common use dates
+from the early renaissance. Although the basic form (i.e., note heads on a
5-line staff) has not changed, the details still change to express the
innovations of contemporary notation. Hence, it encompasses some 500
years of music. Its applications range from monophonic melodies to
monstrous counterpoint for large orchestras.
How can we get a grip on such a many-headed beast, and force it into
-the confines of a computer program? We have broken up the problem of
-notation (as opposed to engraving, i.e. typography) into digestible
-and programmable chunks: every type of symbol is handled by a separate
-module, a so-called plug-in. Each plug-in is completely modular and
-independent, so each can be developed and improved separately. People
-that translate musical ideas to graphic symbols are called copyists or
-engravers, so by analogy, each plug-in is called @code{engraver}.
+the confines of a computer program? Our solution is break up the
+problem of notation (as opposed to engraving, i.e., typography) into
+digestible and programmable chunks: every type of symbol is handled by
+a separate module, a so-called plug-in. Each plug-in is completely
+modular and independent, so each can be developed and improved
+separately. Such plug-ins are called @code{engraver}, by analogy with
+craftsmen who translate musical ideas to graphic symbols.
In the following example, we see how we start out with a plug-in for
note heads, the @code{Note_heads_engraver}.
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
\score {
- \topVoice
- \paper {
- \context {
- \VoiceContext
+ \topVoice
+ \layout {
+ \context {
+ \Voice
\remove "Stem_engraver"
\remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
\remove "Slur_engraver"
\remove "Script_engraver"
\remove "Beam_engraver"
\remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
- }
- \context {
- \StaffContext
+ }
+ \context {
+ \Staff
\remove "Accidental_engraver"
\remove "Key_engraver"
\remove "Clef_engraver"
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
\remove "Staff_symbol_engraver"
\consists "Pitch_squash_engraver"
- }
- }
+ }
+}
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
@noindent
Then a @code{Staff_symbol_engraver} adds the staff
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
\score {
\topVoice
- \paper {
+ \layout {
\context {
- \VoiceContext
+ \Voice
\remove "Stem_engraver"
\remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
\remove "Slur_engraver"
\remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
}
\context {
- \StaffContext
+ \Staff
\remove "Accidental_engraver"
\remove "Key_engraver"
\remove "Clef_engraver"
}
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
@noindent
-The @code{Clef_engraver} defines a reference point for the staff
+the @code{Clef_engraver} defines a reference point for the staff
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
\score {
\topVoice
- \paper {
+ \layout {
\context {
- \VoiceContext
+ \Voice
\remove "Stem_engraver"
\remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
\remove "Slur_engraver"
\remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
}
\context {
- \StaffContext
+ \Staff
\remove "Accidental_engraver"
\remove "Key_engraver"
\remove "Bar_engraver"
}
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
@noindent
-And the @code{Stem_engraver} adds stems
+and the @code{Stem_engraver} adds stems.
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
\score {
\topVoice
- \paper {
+ \layout {
\context {
- \VoiceContext
+ \Voice
\remove "Phrasing_slur_engraver"
\remove "Slur_engraver"
\remove "Script_engraver"
\remove "Auto_beam_engraver"
}
\context {
- \StaffContext
+ \Staff
\remove "Accidental_engraver"
\remove "Key_engraver"
\remove "Bar_engraver"
}
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
The @code{Stem_engraver} is notified of any note head coming along.
Every time one (or more, for a chord) note head is seen, a stem
-object is created and connected to the note head.
-By adding engravers for beams, slurs, accents, accidentals, bar lines,
+object is created and connected to the note head. By adding
+engravers for beams, slurs, accents, accidentals, bar lines,
time signature, and key signature, we get a complete piece of
notation.
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
\score { \topVoice }
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
This system works well for monophonic music, but what about
polyphony? In polyphonic notation, many voices can share a staff.
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
-\score { \context Staff << \topVoice \\ \botVoice >> }
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
+\new Staff << \topVoice \\ \botVoice >>
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
-
-In this situation, the accidentals and staff are shared, but the
-stems, slurs, beams, etc. are private to each voice. Hence, engravers
-should be grouped. The engravers for note heads, stems, slurs, etc. go
-into a group called ``Voice context,'' while the engravers for key,
-accidental, bar, etc. go into a group called ``Staff context.'' In the
-case of polyphony, a single Staff context contains more than one Voice
-context. In polyphonic notation, many voices can share a staff.
-Similarly, more Staff contexts can be put into a single Score context
-
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\include "engraver-example.lyinc"
+
+In this situation, the accidentals and staff are shared, but the stems,
+slurs, beams, etc., are private to each voice. Hence, engravers should
+be grouped. The engravers for note heads, stems, slurs, etc., go into a
+group called `Voice context,' while the engravers for key, accidental,
+bar, etc., go into a group called `Staff context.' In the case of
+polyphony, a single Staff context contains more than one Voice context.
+Similarly, more Staff contexts can be put into a single Score
+context. The Score context is the top level notation context.
+
+@seealso
+
+Program reference: @internalsref{Contexts}.
+
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+\include "engraver-example.ily"
\score {
- <<
- \new Staff << \topVoice \\ \botVoice >>
- \new Staff << \pah \\ \hoom >>
- >>
+ <<
+ \new Staff << \topVoice \\ \botVoice >>
+ \new Staff << \pah \\ \hoom >>
+ >>
}
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
@node Music representation
@section Music representation
The syntax is also the user-interface for LilyPond, hence it is easy
to type
+
@example
c'4 d'8
@end example
-a quarter note C1 (middle C) and eighth note D1 (D above middle C)
-@quotation
-@lilypond[fragment]
+
+@noindent
+a quarter note C1 (middle C) and an eighth note D1 (D above middle C)
+
+@lilypond[quote,fragment]
c'4 d'8
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
On a microscopic scale, such syntax is easy to use. On a larger
scale, syntax also needs structure. How else can you enter complex
concept of music expressions: by combining small fragments of music
into larger ones, more complex music can be expressed. For example
-@quotation
-@lilypond[verbatim,fragment,relative=1]
+@lilypond[quote,verbatim,fragment,relative=1]
c4
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
-Combine this simultaneously with two other notes by enclosing in << and >>
+@noindent
+Chords can be constructed with @code{<<} and @code{>>} enclosing the notes
+@c < > is not a music expression,
+@c so we use <<>> iso. <> to drive home the point of
+@c expressions. Don't change this back --hwn.
@example
<<c4 d4 e4>>
@end example
-@quotation
-@lilypond[fragment,relative=1]
-\new Voice { <<c4 d4 e4>> }
+
+@lilypond[quote,fragment,relative=1]
+\new Voice { <<c4 d4 e>> }
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
+@noindent
This expression is put in sequence by enclosing it in curly braces
-@code{@{ @dots{} @}}
+@code{@{@tie{}@dots{}@tie{}@}}
@example
-@{ <<c4 d4 e4>> f4 @}
+@{ f4 <<c4 d4 e4>> @}
@end example
-@quotation
-@lilypond[relative=1]
-\new Voice { <<c4 d4 e4>> f4 }
+@lilypond[quote,relative=1,fragment]
+{ f4 <<c d e4>> }
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
-
-The above is another expression, and therefore, it many combined again
-with a simultaneous expression; in this case, a half note
+
+@noindent
+The above is also an expression, and so it may be combined
+again with another simultaneous expression (a half note) using <<,
+@code{\\}, and >>
@example
-<< @{ <<c4 d4 e4>> f4 @} g2 >>
+<< g2 \\ @{ f4 <<c4 d4 e4>> @} >>
@end example
-@quotation
-@lilypond[fragment,relative=2]
-\new Voice { << g2 \\ { <c d e>4 f4 } >> }
+
+@lilypond[quote,fragment,relative=2]
+\new Voice { << g2 \\ { f4 <<c d e>> } >> }
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
-
Such recursive structures can be specified neatly and formally in a
context-free grammar. The parsing code is also generated from this
grammar. In other words, the syntax of LilyPond is clearly and
most. They are partly a matter of taste, and also subject of much
discussion. Although discussions on taste do have their merit, they
are not very productive. In the larger picture of LilyPond, the
-importance of input syntax is small: inventing neat syntax is easy,
+importance of input syntax is small: inventing neat syntax is easy, while
writing decent formatting code is much harder. This is also
illustrated by the line-counts for the respective components: parsing
-and representation take up less than 10% of the code.
+and representation take up less than 10% of the source code.
@node Example applications
We have written LilyPond as an experiment of how to condense the art
of music engraving into a computer program. Thanks to all that hard
work, the program can now be used to perform useful tasks. The
-simplest application is printing notes
+simplest application is printing notes.
-@quotation
-@lilypond[relative=1]
+@lilypond[quote,relative=1,fragment]
\time 2/4 c4 c g'4 g a4 a g2
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
@noindent
-By adding chord names and lyrics we obtain a lead sheet
-
-@quotation
-@lilypond[raggedright]
-\score {
- <<
- \context ChordNames \chords { c2 c f2 c }
- \new Staff \notes \relative c' { \time 2/4 c4 c g'4 g a4 a g2 }
- \context Lyrics \lyrics { twin4 kle twin kle lit tle star2 }
- >>
-}
+By adding chord names and lyrics we obtain a lead sheet.
+
+@lilypond[quote,raggedright]
+<<
+ \chords { c2 c f2 c }
+ \new Staff \relative c' { \time 2/4 c4 c g'4 g a4 a g2 }
+ \new Lyrics \lyricmode { twin4 kle twin kle lit tle star2 }
+>>
@end lilypond
-@end quotation
-
Polyphonic notation and piano music can also be printed. The following
-example combines some more exotic constructs
+example combines some more exotic constructs.
-@quotation
-@lilypondfile[raggedright]{screech-boink.ly}
-@end quotation
+@lilypondfile[quote,raggedright]{screech-boink.ly}
The fragments shown above have all been written by hand, but that is
not a requirement. Since the formatting engine is mostly automatic, it
This manual also shows an application: the input format is text, and
can therefore be easily embedded in other text-based formats such as
-La@TeX{}, HTML or in the case of this manual, Texinfo. By means of a
+La@TeX{}, HTML, or in the case of this manual, Texinfo. By means of a
special program, the input fragments can be replaced by music images
-in the resulting PostScript or HTML output files. This makes it easy
+in the resulting PDF or HTML output files. This makes it easy
to mix music and text in documents.
The
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Tutorial}}
-gives a gentle introduction to typesetting music.
-First time users should start here.
+gives a gentle introduction to typesetting music. First time
+users should start here.
+
+@item
+@ifhtml
+The
+@end ifhtml
+@emph{@ref{Example templates}}
+provides templates of LilyPond pieces. Just cut and paste a
+template into a file, add notes, and you're done!
@item
@ifhtml
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Changing defaults}}
explains how to fine tune layout.
+
@item
@ifhtml
The chapter
@end ifhtml
-@emph{@ref{Invoking LilyPond}} shows how to run LilyPond and its helper
+@emph{@ref{Running LilyPond}} shows how to run LilyPond and its helper
programs.
@item
@ifhtml
The
@end ifhtml
-@emph{@ref{lilypond-book manual}}
-explains the details behind creating documents with in-line music
+@emph{@ref{Integrating text and music}}
+explains the details behind creating documents with in-line music
examples (like this manual).
@item
@emph{@ref{Converting from other formats}}
explains how to run the conversion programs. These programs
are supplied with the LilyPond package, and convert a variety of music
-formats to the @code{.ly} format. In addition, this section explains
+formats to the @code{.ly} format. In addition, this section explains
how to upgrade input files from previous versions of LilyPond.
@item
The
@end ifhtml
@emph{@ref{Literature list}}
- contains a set of useful reference books, for those who wish to know
- more on notation and engraving.
-
+contains a set of useful reference books for those who wish to know
+more on notation and engraving.
@end itemize
Once you are an experienced user, you can use the manual as reference:
@end ifhtml
The program reference is a set of heavily cross linked HTML pages,
-which documents the nit-gritty details of each and every LilyPond
-class, object and function. It is produced directly from the
+which document the nit-gritty details of each and every LilyPond
+class, object, and function. It is produced directly from the
formatting definitions used.
Almost all formatting functionality that is used internally, is
available directly to the user. For example, all variables that
-control thicknesses, distances, etc, can be changed in input
+control thickness values, distances, etc., can be changed in input
files. There are a huge number of formatting options, and all of them
-are described in the generated documentation. Each section of the
+are described in this document. Each section of the
notation manual has a @b{See also} subsection, which refers to the
the generated documentation. In the HTML document, these subsections
have clickable links.
@item
- Templates
-@ifhtml
-(available @uref{../../../input/template/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
-@end ifhtml
-
-After you have gone through the tutorial, you should be able to write
-input files. In practice, writing files from scratch turns out to be
-intimidating. To give you a head start, we have collected a number of
-often-used formats in example files. These files can be used as a
-start; simply copy the template and add notes in the appropriate
-places.
-
-@item
- Various input examples
+Various input examples
@ifhtml
(available @uref{../../../../input/test/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
@end ifhtml
included.
@item
- The regression tests
+The regression tests
@ifhtml
-(available @uref{../../../input/regression/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
+(available @uref{../../../../input/regression/out-www/collated-files.html,here})
@end ifhtml
This collection of files tests each notation and engraving feature of
LilyPond in one file. The collection is primarily there to help us
debug problems, but it can be instructive to see how we exercise the
program. The format is similar to the the tips and tricks document.
-
@end itemize
initialization and example files. Throughout this manual, we refer to
input files relative to the top-directory of the source archive. For
example, @file{input/test/bla.ly} may refer to the file
-@file{lilypond-1.7.19/input/test/bla.ly}. On binary packages for the
+@file{lilypond-2.3.14/input/test/bla.ly}. On binary packages for the
Unix platform, the documentation and examples can typically be found
somewhere below @file{/usr/share/doc/lilypond/}. Initialization files,
for example @file{scm/lily.scm}, or @file{ly/engraver-init.ly}, are
projects / lilypond.git / blobdiff