Re: Should sample code in NR build correctly?

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 5/22/09 4:25 PM, "Nick Payne" <address@hidden> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick McCarty [mailto:address@hidden
>> Sent: Saturday, 23 May 2009 8:15 AM
>> To: Nick Payne
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Subject: Re: Should sample code in NR build correctly?
>> 
>> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:54:54AM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
>>> For example, on p.98 of the PDF version of the 2.12.2 NR the
>> following
>>> example appears about half way down the page:
>>> 
>>> \repeat volta 2 { c4 d e f }
>>> c2 d
>>> \repeat volta 2 { d4 e f g }
>>> 
>>> If you try to build this using 2.12.2 on Windows you get
>>> 
>>> error: syntax error, unexpected NOTENAME_PITCH
>>> 
>>> c2 d
>>> 
>>> and the output is two separate staves rather than the single staff
>> shown
>>> with the example. The whole thing has to be surrounded by \relative
>> c'' { }
>>> to get the desired output.
>>> 
>>> The reason I ask is that I remember a post from someone a while ago
>> saying
>>> that the code as shown in the manuals had been used to produce the
>> output.
>> 
>> If you click on the image of the musical example, and copy/paste the
>> appropriate code, it should compile.
>> 
> That suggestion only works with the HTML documentation, not the PDF
> documentation. I almost always use the PDF documentation, as I can build an
> easily searchable index across all the different manuals.

Nearly all the examples are in relative mode, meaning they have a
\relative c' {} 

(or some other octave)

around them.  It was a conscious choice to do so.  This convention is
explained in Learning Manual 2.1.4 How to read the manual.

How should it be more prominent?

Carl