Re: GDP: new display for warnings

[Graham Percival]

Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2007, at 02:07, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> [Please note that non-members are not allowed to post on LilyPond-Devel, 
> so cc-ing it will not result in replies.]

!!!

Thanks for the warning, I had no idea!  (don't reply to this email, then)

> > I find them quite useful in another project I maintain; should we use
> > them throughout the LilyPond docs?
>
> I think you might more words, depending on the contents.

For clarity of documentation writers, I've defined a single @warning{} 
macro, so we can only pick one word.  Everybody likes "note", so I've 
gone with that.

> Now, the first part is really a requirement:
>   Every part of LilyPond input must have curly braces placed around the 
> input
> - or else the compile fails. So it is not merely a warning - it is a 
> requirement. Also, I changed "piece" to "part", following Church's book 
> on lambda calculus, which has a technical definition of a "part" of a 
> lambda expression. It seems me, you have a similar syntactically closed 
> part in mind here.

Speaking non-technically (I've never read any of Church's writings, and 
I've forgotten his famous law/thesis/something on formal automata), I 
think that "piece" is better than "part".  "Every piece of..." sounds 
more natural than "Every part of..."

If this was in the user manual, I'd be tempted to go with the more 
technically correct word (ie "part"), but the tutorial is designed to be 
easy to read, so I prefer keeping "piece".

> The part "These may be omitted in some examples in this manual...". Is 
> it the braces or spaces that may be omitted? - Though English implies it 
> referes to the braces, it is somewhat unclear.

Thanks, fixed.

> And if they are omitted 
> in the manual, is it because there is an error in the manual or what?

This is explained in 2.1.4 How to read the tutorial.

Cheers,
- Graham