https://codereview.appspot.com/7013043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi File Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/7013043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi#newcode155 Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi:155: The correct way to add [changes like this] to the documentation is to On 2012/12/26 07:32:01, J_lowe wrote:
On 2012/12/25 09:10:01, bealingsplayfordnews wrote: > Why the [] ?
This is a standard way to to clarify the antecedent. Also you will see
it used
to denote missing text [ ... ] or more commonly to denote a mistake or inaccuracy in a quote without it being attributed to the author of the
text it
is being quoted in (i.e '[sic]').
Anyway, enough of that, I have rewritten the sentence.
Actually, the _only_ usage of [...] I know in text passages is an editorial addition, signifying material added by someone different from the original author. In particular, "[sic]" means "as the editor, I am perfectly aware that this is wrong, thank you very much. But since this is a literal quotation, I am not at liberty correcting it." Another frequent use is to make explicit what object a pronoun in a quoted section is referring to if the scope of the quotation does not allow deducing it. Also, when only sentence parts are quoted and the result would be ungrammatical, editorial insertions used for creating a grammatical sentence again will be marked with [...]. https://codereview.appspot.com/7013043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
