[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Issue #3947] fixing \huge et al.

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: [Issue #3947] fixing \huge et al.
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 20:06:58 +0000
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

On 6/7/17 2:01 PM, "Kieren MacMillan" <address@hidden>

>> Is there any place else in the codebase where we include lilypond
>> in the doc strings?  It seems like we ought to try for consistency;
>> use lilypond examples in all of the doc strings (maybe at least for
>> functions) or in none of them.  I don't know the right answer; I'm just
>> raising the question.
>It's a good question. I simply copied this code from
>define-markup-commands.scm. On quick glance, it appears that most of
>those functions have Lilypond examples in their doc string(s). In any
>case, I'll leave it as a different question, to be handled separately
>from the improvement of \huge et al.

It's a perfect answer -- that's what is currently being done in
define-markup-commands.scm, so we should continue doing that.



reply via email to

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