Re: Issue 5187 Add command for Thin Aiken noteheads (issue 326510043 by address@hidden)

[pkx166h]

On 2017/09/20 23:38:35, karlinhigh wrote:
> > On 2017/09/20 17:48:57, Carl wrote:
> > the documentation (Shape Note Heads, in NR 1.1.4 should also be
changed

> I am uncertain how to go ahead here. Especially with regards to
coordinating
> with Rietveld 330180043, Sourceforge 5186 that was adding an Aiken
Thin-Heads
> example snippet to the Notation Reference manual. That appears
committed on
> September 16, but I can't find it in 2.19 NR manual online. (Effects
of ongoing
> work towards 2.20 stable release, perhaps?)

No.

This was checked into Staging which then gets pushed to master. AT this
time Master is on 2.21 which is where the snippet will finally appear
once the 2.21 docs are built and published on the website. They may end
up in 2.20 but that's being managed 'separately' as far as this is
concerned.

Just continue to work off of current master.

Bits of current master may get merged into 2.20 but that's a decision
done outside of normal patch testing.

> I did a git pull and tried following
> the CG 5.7.1 test scripts to build the "notation pitches" section
locally. I can
> see the new snippet in the downloaded source code and the
locally-built
> document, but something seems broken. I see the Predefined commands
section
> appearing as online, then Selected Snippets starts with what looks
like part of
> my bug report code...

> }
> % END EXAMPLE

> <image for Aiken Thin-Heads snippet>

> <code for snippet
> applying-note-head-styles-depending-on-the-step-of-the-scale.ly>

> It's more normal after that, but the paragraph describing the
> *step-of-the-scale.ly snippet is not appearing. I will wait for
further comments
> from James Lowe the snippet author, or anyone else who can explain the
situation
> here. Is there a problem with the snippet, or am I building and
viewing it
> wrongly?

It could be something to do with the scripts when the notation pitch
being built locally, I haven't tried that as I always just do a full
make doc as part or patch testing.


> Then, any comments on how much documentation should be written? Would
adding
> \aikenThinHeads and \aikenThinHeadsMinor to the list of "Predefined
commands" be
> sufficient?

That would be better than nothing.

> Or should a snippet be included with two systems of c-major-scale
> white-head notes, one for each Aiken variant?

Well if you can do an @lilypond example instead of a 'snippet' that is
always preferable.

Snippets are usually for things that are not 'simple' or are not
'standard, out of the box' commands.

Anything that is sandwiched between

@lilypond

@end lilypond

is preferred to anything that is a snippet.

The area between snippet and @lilypond example can sometimes be grey,
but usually if you can use an @lilypond construct (which uses the
Lilypond-book part of the code to generate those images in the docs) and
keep it is as simple as possible then those would be great.

One thing my mentor showed me and was not obvious at the time was that
you can build just the LilyPond binary and then use the lilypond-book
command to 'test' your own @lilypond example and see if it looks OK or
will work, without having to compile the whole document.

See:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/lilypond_002dbook-templates

The texinfo template.

You can then run something like  lilypond-book --pdf mytemplate.tely &&
texi2pdf mytemplate.texi && evince mytemplate.pdf

and you'll get a quick idea of what your @lilypond example will look
like using your commands.

I hope this helps.

James


https://codereview.appspot.com/326510043/