Graham Percival wrote: > http://codereview.appspot.com/1056041/diff/33001/27003#newcode2481 > Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:2481: << > There is *still* an indentation mistake here. This is the > third time I've pointed it out -- do we disagree on the > "two-space indents" rule?
Graham, have you not been getting my comment replies? I've explained this twice now: http://codereview.appspot.com/1056041/diff/1/3#newcode2537 http://codereview.appspot.com/1056041/diff/24001/25002#newcode2481 Now I will explain it a third time. The indentation is intentionally wrong. It represents an intermediate stage of the input code as new elements are added, and before they are formatted. The text is clear about this and walks the user through the step of fixing the indentation. To see this yourself, go to LM 3.4.1 "Soprano and cello": http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/learning/soprano-and-cello.html Scroll down past the third example to the paragraph that starts with "This is looking promising". Read the next couple of paragraphs in context: * * * * * * * * * * This is looking promising, but the cello part won’t appear in the score – we haven’t used it in the \score section. If we want the cello part to appear under the soprano part, we need to add \new Staff \celloMusic underneath the soprano stuff. We also need to add << and >> around the music – that tells LilyPond that there’s more than one thing (in this case, two Staves) happening at once. The \score looks like this now: [ the example with bad indentation ] This looks a bit messy; the indentation is messed up now. That is easily fixed. Here’s the complete soprano and cello template. [ the example with good indentation ] * * * * * * * * * * - Mark _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
