Re: renamed snippets

[Neil Puttock]

On 02/04/2008, Graham Percival <address@hidden> wrote:

>  As for the doc-ness of snippets... this is where I wish that we
>  had been a bit more cautious about marking things as "docs".  Any
>  snippet that appears in the manual directly should of course
>  conform to our standards (although since it's easy to fix these
>  later, I'm not being strict about this)
>
>  Ideally, snippets which appear in the Snippet list in the docs
>  should also conform to our standards.

I agree. So far, I've restricted my changes mainly to spelling and
grammar, with a few rewrites for particularly glaring examples such as
contemporary-glissando.ly.

>  As for other snippets... I'm not too concerned.  I certainly don't
>  think that we should withhold snippets from LSR until they
>  rigorously match our guidelines.  It would be nice if the LSR
>  editors could rewrite every single snippet that people submit to
>  make it match our guidelines, but I'm not certain you have that
>  amount of time -- and even if you *do* have the time, I'm certain
>  that I could find better uses for it.  :)

Though I've tweaked a few examples mentioned on -user, I wasn't for a
moment advocating extending GDP guidelines to cover general LSR
snippets. It would be a mammoth task and take up far too much valuable
time.  :)

Regards,
Neil