[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 18:40:45 +0100

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:51 PM
>> or as a new 2.1.7.
> I suppose this would do, as long as the previous examples
> didn't include bar checks.

The only part that might need them are some of the slur / phrasing
slur examples.  I'm not certain if Mark wants to split those onto
separate lines or not; I'll look at the patch in a bit.

> But I still prefer my original suggestion - in 1.2 How to write
> input files - where all the other hints and conventions are
> introduced.

I'm not totally opposed to that idea, but it would mean that "bar
checks" wouldn't show up in the table of contents.  Granted, the same
criticism would apply to \version statements.

In more serious business, this part is horrible:
They are entered using the bar symbol, |.

it sounds like the symbol is |.  -- and since we use \bar "|."
elsewhere, I'm not certain that's a totally silly reading.  How about:
    They are entered with the pipe | symbol.

Or, even better, rephrase the paragraph so that you don't talk about
code in the middle of text, but simply show an example?  Maybe have
one dead-simple exmaple:
  c1 | d2 e4 f |
to get people familiar with the syntax, then have a more complicated
example with some funky rhythms, to show it in context and motivate
its use.

- Graham

reply via email to

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