Re: Clarify notation for slurs and beams (issue 343060043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

https://codereview.appspot.com/343060043/diff/40001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely
File Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/343060043/diff/40001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode465
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:465: optionally followed by one
or more post-events.  Post-events add
On 2018/04/30 22:19:12, Carl wrote:
> On 2018/04/30 21:49:37, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> > I'd completely delete 'post-event'.
> > From a musical thinking it makes no sense. An articulation is not
performed
> > _after_ the note.
> > To explain it programmatical, this is not the right place, imho.
> >
> > Why not simply:
> >
> > "A note entry in LilyPond consists of a pitch, followed by a
duration,
> > optionally followed by things such as articulations, fingerings,
string
> numbers,
> > slurs, ties, explanatory text, etc."

> We could do this.  But ultimately all the things that attach to notes
like this
> are called post-events in the internals reference.  So I don't think
it's a bad
> idea to introduce the LilyPond term here, just like we do for pitch
and
> duration.  All three terms (pitch, duration, post-event) are LilyPond
terms, not
> musical terms.

> We aren't explaining music in this section.  We are explaining
LilyPond
> constructs.

"pitch" and "duration" are certainly valid musical terms outside of
LilyPond and describe musical entities even within LilyPond.
"post-event" does not carry meaning separate from the LilyPond grammar.

It might make sense to introduce it as a LilyPond term by putting it in
quote marks first mention:

one or more @q{post-events}.  Post-events are placed after a main event
in the input and constitute things such as ...

https://codereview.appspot.com/343060043/diff/40001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode481
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:481: Post-events follow the
note to which they are attached.  Suppose we
On 2018/04/30 22:19:12, Carl wrote:
> I don't think I agree that things are attached with "-" signs.

It's more a less a matter of what one wants to declare the rule and what
the exception.  It's more of a semantic difference, so it's more the
question of which view might be more helpful.

I'd lean towards keeping your version here: I think it better matches
what we use elsewhere.

https://codereview.appspot.com/343060043/