Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello everybody,
>
> I just noticed that it’s possible to use the LilyPond symbol list/key
> list syntax when setting melismaBusyProperties. However, the doc
> string reads
>
> "A list of properties (symbols) to determine whether a melisma is playing.
> Setting this property will influence how lyrics are aligned to notes.
> For example, if set to @code{'(melismaBusy beamMelismaBusy)},
> only manual melismata and manual beams are considered.
> Possible values include @code{melismaBusy}, @code{slurMelismaBusy},
> @code{tieMelismaBusy}, and @code{beamMelismaBusy}."
>
> Would we want to change the first code example to
>
> @code{melismaBusy,beamMelismaBusy}
>
> or otherwise suggest the new syntax?

Feel free to do so, I think.  It's not really a change of syntax
specifically for melismaBusyProperties so I'd likely not mess with the
descriptions when they talk about "symbol list" or whatever.  Instead
I'd just change the examples.

-- 
David Kastrup