revised patch uploaded.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode846
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:846: change the state
permanently.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If I may make a suggestion for this whole paragraph?
--snip--
In professional scores, voices are often kept apart for long periods -
even if
one or two notes actually coincide and could easily be printed as
@emph{unisono}. Combining notes into a chord, or to print one voice
as solo is
therefore not ideal as the @code{\partcombine} function considers each
note
separately.
For this reason, the @code{\partcombine} function can be overriden
with the
following commands:
--snip--
I have moved that final sentence below the list
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Again do we @emph{} unisono? I assume this is a musical term and not
just a
mis-translation of foreign usage?
I believe "unisono" is a Dutch usage, so I've changed it to "unison",
although it is hardwired into the names of functions like
\partCombineUnisono.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode856
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:856: Combine the notes to a
chord.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
There was much discussion on 'chord' vs 'not chord' unrelated to this,
but still
enough to worry some. So is 'chord' the correct term here? I have no
preference
but am just pre-empting discussion.
I think it's safe, given the names of the commands. Whether the
commands are correctly named may be another discussion!
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode860
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:860: The two voices are
unisono.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
@emph{unisono}
As above.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination
strategy automatically determined.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Can we be more descriptive on what the 'automatic' strategy is? Or we
could
simply say
"Let the software decide which is the best option". I want to not use
the word
'strategy'.
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode874
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:874: @end itemize
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Now add the final sentence from above:
All commands ending in @code{...Once} apply only to the following
note.
---
It is therefore implicit and unnecessary to state what the code that
doesn't end
in 'once' does. So I have removed that sentence.
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode880
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:880: \partcombineChords
e'^"chord" e |
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If we do change the word 'chord' above then we need to change it here
too.
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode891
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:891: c2 c
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If we're going to have bar checks then we need one on the last bar
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode897
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:897: \new Staff \partcombine
\instrumentOne \instrumentTwo
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If we do keep this @lilypond (see comment below) I'd like to see {}
after the
new Staff for clarity.
<<
\new Staff { \instrumentOne }
\new Staff { \instrumentTwo }
\new Staff { \partcombine \instrumentOne \instrumentTwo }
>>
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode899
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:899: @end lilypond
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Maybe I have missed something but this looks a tad complicated for an
@lilypond
and would be better served as a snippet instead. We don't often use
variables
like this in @lilypond except when explicitly discussing variables.
It may be more confusing to write it without variables; \partcombine is
certainly easier to do *with* than without, and I believe the example is
nearly unreadable without variables. Other tastes are of course
different!
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
