Re: [PATCH]: Doc: LM 3.2: Entering voices in the correct order.

[Mark Polesky]

Carl, it looks like you're outnumbered wrt to LM vs. NR, but
feel free to protest against us masses, we'll listen.

Trevor, my reply to your post follows my reply to Graham's.

Graham Percival wrote:
> - I don't like the @example; could you use @enumerate
>   instead?

I agree with Trevor; that would add extra space.


> - delete the "The following image demonstrates
>   this visually"; just end with "... and the
>   even-numbered voices are given downstems."

Done.


> ... actually, do we really need the @example (or
> @enumerate) ?  The image looks great.  What about removing
> the @example entirely?

I was thinking of our visually-impaired users.


> - that said, one quibble: could the fingering for voices 5
> and 6 be placed below and above the notes?

Not sure I understand this request exactly, but I
repositioned the numbers a little more clearly (I think).
Let me know what you think.


> - could you replace "... the third measure above could be
> entered..." with "... above SHOULD be entered..." ?

Well, my thought was that there *are* other valid ways of
doing it, like using absolute mode, or entering more than
one measure at a time.  But I'll change it if you still
think it's better.


> - please avoid having @ref{A reference split across a
> linebreak} because it produces bad output in one of our
> doc formats (I forget which one, though)

Done.

* * * * * * * * * *

Trevor Daniels wrote:
> One comment.  The example which follows the first part of
> the patch, Chopin's Deux Nocturnes, Op 32, does not follow
> this new advice!  Should it be reworked also?

Good catch!  Yes, ultimately I think this should be
reworked, but it's not so urgent right now.

- Mark

0001-Doc-LM-3.2-Entering-voices-in-the-correct-order.patch.txt
Description: Text document