lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Doc: new syntax for \tweak, \override (2936) (issue 6852052)


From: k-ohara5a5a
Subject: Re: Doc: new syntax for \tweak, \override (2936) (issue 6852052)
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:58:09 +0000

lgtm


http://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/diff/1/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/diff/1/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode221
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:221: @var{value}.  This must always
be present in exactly this form.
On 2012/11/19 09:13:27, Trevor Daniels wrote:
I take your point but I don't want to mention Scheme
at this stage in the LM.

The original "don't worry about the #" made me cringe. ("Why are you
telling me about it if I'm not supposed to worry about it? You
patronizing ...")

Early on, I had to realize that # indicated some mysterious shift in the
interpretation of my input.  While #4. is number, 4. is a dotted-quarter
duration.  For a while I thought # meant 'number' so that #red was the
number of the color in some palette, as opposed to the usual note name,
ré dièse.

It would be helpful to have some idea of what # means.  New users do
need to worry about it in that we have to follow with a single word or
something in balanced () parentheses.  I do not think anyone will be
afraid of "LilyPond uses '#' to indicate an expression in a programming
language called Scheme.  We often use # in overrides to indicate values
like the number #-2 and the predefined color #red as distinct from
musical notation."

http://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/diff/1006/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/diff/1006/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode2645
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2645: @cindex MIDI, instrument
On 2012/11/19 10:36:14, Trevor Daniels wrote:
This is an artefact due to rebasing.  It appears only
in the comparison with Patch set 1, not in the patch
itself.

Maybe one shouldn't rebase between patch sets?

It is surprising to see changes from other commits when we compare two
versions of a pending patch-set, but we do want to be /able/ to see
them, just in case they conflict.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]