[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 09:24:52 +0100

Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
is more than one bar long.  That's a good habit to get
into; we ought to start it right from the first.

I would agree with this.  In fact I put bar checks into
quite a few of the examples in the LM originally, but they
seem to have been removed.

Perhaps the reason for removing the bar checks was that
they're not explained at all in the LM.  Do you think we
should mention bar checks (briefly) near the beginning of
the LM, without going into detail?  Then we'd be justified
using them in the examples.

I don't think that was the reason, but you make a good point.

Actually there is a convoluted path to bar checks from
LM 1.3.1 Dealing with errors/General troubleshooting tips.
The link there to Troubleshooting takes you to Usage 5.4
and under Usage 1.4 Common errors there's a link to Bars
in the NR which contains a section on bar checks.  This
seems a pretty successful way of hiding the solution to
probably the most common problem encountered by the new
user. IIRC I put this section on Common errors in the LM when I wrote it.

A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on input
files would be good.  I think bar checks are at least as
important as a \version statement, which is mentioned there.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]