On 5 Oct 2007, at 23:20, Graham Percival wrote:
On 4 Oct 2007, at 02:07, Graham Percival wrote:
[Please note that non-members are not allowed to post on LilyPond-
Devel, so cc-ing it will not result in replies.]
Thanks for the warning, I had no idea!
I may have changed over time - it did not bounce now. Check with
David R. Linn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
(don't reply to this email, then)
It is sort of automatic, when doing reply-to-all. Easier to not worry
about the bounces. But the one that put up the cc may not get the
intended effect.
I find them quite useful in another project I maintain; should we
use
them throughout the LilyPond docs?
I think you might more words, depending on the contents.
For clarity of documentation writers, I've defined a single @warning
{} macro,
so we can only pick one word. Everybody likes "note", so I've gone
with that.
That is probably more normal in documents. The Bourbaki used a
"dangerous bend" symbol, and Knuth in the "TeX book" used something
like that to. So I think that the important thing is to get a clear
classification whatever it is. Knuth uses a dangerous bend symbol in
a road sign symbol. Perhaps an exclamation mark "!" could be used for
information that is required for the code to compile.
Now, the first part is really a requirement:
Every part of LilyPond input must have curly braces placed
around the input
- or else the compile fails. So it is not merely a warning - it is
a requirement. Also, I changed "piece" to "part", following
Church's book on lambda calculus, which has a technical definition
of a "part" of a lambda expression. It seems me, you have a
similar syntactically closed part in mind here.
Speaking non-technically (I've never read any of Church's writings,
and I've forgotten his famous law/thesis/something on formal
automata), I think that "piece" is better than "part". "Every
piece of..." sounds more natural than "Every part of..."
If this was in the user manual, I'd be tempted to go with the more
technically correct word (ie "part"), but the tutorial is designed
to be easy to read, so I prefer keeping "piece".
Right. "Piece" is better informally; "part" would you ever decide to
give a technical definition.
And if they are omitted in the manual, is it because there is an
error in the manual or what?
This is explained in 2.1.4 How to read the tutorial.
Then perhaps give some hint of that :-). If there should be a comment
at all, it might be reworded as say: "as mentioned [before|elsewhere|
in section 2.1.4], required [spaces|braces|stuff] may be omitted in
the examples". This style makes the text somewhat heavier, but it
helps local reading.
Hans Åberg
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
