[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: problematic commit 02fe038744e634b42f1a3377c4f0dc3d25e80344
From: |
Valentin Villenave |
Subject: |
Re: problematic commit 02fe038744e634b42f1a3377c4f0dc3d25e80344 |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:32:54 +0200 |
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
> I would have liked to see this in codereview before it showed up in git
> master.
Feel free to revert it.
> changes.tely:
> - why is \include "still recommended"?
Because \include works with "arabic.ly".
> pitches.itely:
> - if \include is still recommended, then why is \language discussed first?
Because it's way simpler.
> - I see a @noindent, which is heavily discouraged by the doc policy.
> - I see @exmaples, which are also discouraged by the doc policy.
Have you had a look at the current doc?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/writing-pitches#note-names-in-other-languages
I see "talking through the code", which is heavily discouraged by the
doc policy and IMO much worse than having a clean @example block.
> - does \language support scoping? If so, it would be nice to see that
> discussed.
Nope. That's why it isn't discussed.
(As Neil pointed out, scoping wouldn't be much of an interesting
feature in this case.)
> - perhaps we should not consider arabic.ly as a "language", but rather
> as an "instrument (or music) style", like bagpipes.ly or gregorian.ly.
> If so, then this is the appropriate time to discuss it.
So I suggested. But since I wouldn't make this choice on my own, in
the meantime I updated the docs in a way that preserved the logic we
used so far: not only is arabic.ly still regarded as a language, but
the languages are still referred to with a .ly extension in the table
(which wouldn't make any sense if we emphasized and recommended the
\language command).
I believe that deprecating the "language.ly" approach deserves more
thoughts and discussions, and before we do that, this commit fills the
gap.
Cheers.