Re: Should sample code in NR build correctly?

[Patrick McCarty]

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 04:39:45PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> 
> 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?

I initially thought that the information should be presented *earlier*
in the Learning Manual, but now that I have looked through the
tutorial again, I think it would be confusing to explain the clickable
examples before section 2.1.4 (soon to be section 1.1.4).  So, it's
okay the way it stands.

-Patrick