[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order"
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order" |
Date: |
Fri, 21 May 2010 17:51:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 09:37:28AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > If somebody wants to work on making unfinished doc
> > sections match our doc policy (such as NR 2.1 Vocals, or
> > anything in NR 3 or higher), let's talk.
>
> I will be posting a patch soon to reformat the ly code in
> the NR, along the same lines as this patch that did the same
> thing for the LM:
I really, really, really, really think that writing a script that
does this automatically would save everybody a lot of time and
effort. Such scripts already exist! -- although they'll almost
certainly require some modification.
- no need to manually change indentation in .itely files. Or .ly
files / snippets / etc.
- no need to manually fix broken indentation on a yearly basis
when things get committed by accident.
- no need for us to argue about each case individually; we just
set out the general rules and then apply them.
- no need to constantly remind new doc editors or snippet authors
to read the CG; just tell them to run the script, and it'd
either do the right thing, or warn about wrong things.
- the script would be useful for users and general .ly
file-writing as well.
- etc.
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", (continued)
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/20
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Jean-Charles Malahieude, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order",
Graham Percival <=
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/23
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Trevor Daniels, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/26
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/29
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/31