Re: Issue 995 in lilypond: tuplets at the begin of a piece cannot begin with a \tempo indication

[lilypond]

Comment #15 on issue 995 by brownian.box: tuplets at the begin of  a piece  
cannot begin with a \tempo indication
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=995

Why what?-)

Why unreadable? Well, yes, this can be an arguable thing.

Anyway, take a look, please:

---------------------8<-------------------------------
<h4 class="subsubheading">Known issues and warnings</h4>

<p>Switching staves when a tie is active will not produce a slanted
tie.
</p>
<p>Changing clefs or octavations during a tie is not really
well-defined.  In these cases, a slur may be preferable.
</p>
---------------------8<-------------------------------

Here are two warnings, one warning per paragraph. It's good.

But here is only one paragraph for two ("for all" here) warnings:
---------------------8<-------------------------------
<a name="Known-issues-and-warnings-29"></a>
<h4 class="subsubheading">Known issues and warnings</h4>
<p>When the first note on a staff is a grace note followed by a
tuplet the grace note must be placed before the <code>\times</code>
command to avoid errors.  Anywhere else, grace notes may be
placed within tuplet brackets.  When using a tuplet at the beginning
of a piece with a <code>\tempo</code> mark, you must add an explicit
<code>\new Voice</code> as discussed in <a  
name="index-Voices-contain-music"></a>

<a href="../learning/voices-contain-music">Voices contain music</a>.
</p>
---------------------8<-------------------------------

I failed to find another place where would be more then one warning per  
paragraph. I can not see any reason why to change this "style". If there  
_would be_ such places --- anyway, i would say "it's bad".

One warning per paragraph is far more readable. When i'm starting to read a  
paragraph and can see that it's about ferrari cars, i'm skipping it  
completely if i'm looking for some/any info about baroque music.

:-) It's my opinion. I may be wrong. Sorry .) I just explained why i  
(personally) would not like to "verify" this issue in this state.

Thank you for your effort, anyway!-)