Re: New format for autobeaming rules

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 07:43:56AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 7/14/09 3:57 PM, "address@hidden" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > http://codereview.appspot.com/88155/diff/95/1147#newcode69
> > Line 69: section 1.2.4 Beams, for more information.
> > Is it possible to use @ruser{} here?
> 
> I'm not sure.  I thought NEWS was supposed to be a standalone document.
> Graham, you're the source of all truth about documents; what do you think?

Until now, it's been a standalone document, but perhaps that
should change.  Only after the new unified doc process, unified
macros, etc, though.  So just leave it as-is for now.  :)

> > http://codereview.appspot.com/88155/diff/95/1149#newcode1743
> > Line 1743: Beam settings can be reverted to get back to default
> > behavior.  This
> > This looks like it should be an input/new snippet.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand why you think it should it be in input/new instead
> of just being in the docs.  It doesn't use \set or \override.  It explains
> the use of a LilyPond command.  That's why I thought it should be an inline
> snippet.

In most doc sections, we'd move tweaking-type stuff (and I think
that \overrideBeamSettings would qualify) into snippets.

HOWEVER, certain NR sections go into more detail... my traditional
example of this is the page about changing automatic beam
settings.  So I definitely think it's ok to have this inline here.

Cheers,
- Graham