[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Why no review on Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol?
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 16:13:57 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 03:02:42PM +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 12/3/11 7:38 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >James <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> Nothing sinister about it, and am happy to revert it but don't
> >> understand why this is bad. Sure the new example is much 'simpler'
> >> than having  write all the \new Staff { with }, especially when I as a
> >> LP user want to write single system scores where I would probably
> >> never ever use \new Staff { \with.
> >
> >You apparently did not read what I wrote.  The new example _does_ _not_
> >_work_ in standalone contexts.
> Actually, if you follow the instructions in the Learning Manual, it _does_
> work.
> See the Learning Manual, section 1.4.1 Omitted material, which explains
> that snippets from the documentation need to be enclosed in {} or
> \relative {}.

For the record, I discussed this with James (a month or two ago?),
and suggested removing the \with for exactly this reason.

> >And anyway, using music overrides instead of context modifications is
> >_asking_ _for_ _trouble_ here since the overrides take only effect at a
> >certain _musical_ moment.  And that moment may already be too late for
> >proper typesetting.

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.  As the doc
editor since 2003, I don't know what the difference is between
music overrides and context modifications.

> This argument seems to me to be the salient argument here.  Properties
> that should affect an entire context are better placed in a context
> modification.
> So I think I agree that the simplification should not be made.

Ok.  James: please change this back.

Overall lesson: it seems that we should have reviews for more doc
items than we did previously, since neither James nor I are
qualified to deal with advanced lilypond concepts.

- Graham

reply via email to

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