LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
2013/4/10 David Kastrup
>
> Janek Warchoł writes:
> > Of course not! But when i'm editing Wikipedia, i have syntax buttons
> > next to me, and i can preview changes without waiting more than a few
> > seconds.
>
> Maybe you should try using Emacs as an editor. It has menus and buttons
> for wri
> But when i'm editing Wikipedia, i have syntax buttons next to me,
> and i can preview changes without waiting more than a few seconds.
As David has said, makeinfo called via `make' does the syntax checks
for you, and with the `info' program (or the Emacs editor) you can see
the resulting change
Janek Warchoł writes:
> 2013/4/10 Werner LEMBERG :
>>
>>> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax
>>> :)
>>
>> Tsk tsk tsk.
>>
>>> I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was
>>> a simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the
>
2013/4/10 Werner LEMBERG :
>
>> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax
>> :)
>
> Tsk tsk tsk.
>
>> I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was
>> a simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the
>> maintenance...
>
> And you think
> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax
> :)
Tsk tsk tsk.
> I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was
> a simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the
> maintenance...
And you think that wrong Wiki syntax (which you event
2013/4/10 :
> On 2013/04/10 10:45:29, janek wrote:
>>
>> bang.
>> that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax :)
>
> You _are_ aware that a simple "make" will check the Texinfo syntax of
> the docs, just not the syntax of any embedded LilyPond example?
No, i wasn't - silly
On 2013/04/10 10:45:29, janek wrote:
bang.
that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax :)
I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was a
simple
doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the maintenance...
You _are_ aware that a simpl
bang.
that's why i don't like writing docs - i don't remember the syntax :)
I wonder if it would be easier if we were using some wiki - this was a
simple doc addition and it took me about an hour to do all the
maintenance...
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notati
nearly there
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1641
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @emph {Tem
On 2013/04/10 07:06:47, dak wrote:
On 2013/04/10 06:50:59, janek wrote:
> Hmm, so i'd have to ref "Single-staff polyphony"
> which is a @node?
Texinfo comes with a manual. You can either reference
a @node or an @anchor.
Indeed, there's something about this in
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.
On 2013/04/10 06:50:59, janek wrote:
Hmm, so i'd have to ref "Single-staff polyphony" which is a @node?
Yes. In this situation we usually write something like,
"See Temporary polyphonic passages in Single-staff polyphony"
(with correct texinfo markup of course).
The different headings and th
On 2013/04/10 06:50:59, janek wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1641
Documentation/notation/v
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1641
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @ref{Temporary polyphoni
fails make
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1641
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1641: @ref{Tempora
done.
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1632
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1632: cadence, or a mea
A couple of minor suggestions, otherwise LGTM
Thanks, Janek!
Trevor
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newco
Changed as suggested.
Janek
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1632
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1632: ca
The section at 1.5.2 on Single-staff polyphony
forms a unified whole and needs to remain as it is.
However, I'd be happy to see the first paragraph
of the patch inserted at the end of Divisi lyrics
in 2.1.2 followed by a reference to the appropriate
section in 1.5.2. It is important that informat
A proposal: given that no other section of 1.5.2 mentions lyrics,
perhaps using my submission (or the original at 1.5.2) for temporary
polyphonic context at 2.1.2 is a better option, with a link at 1.5.2 to
2.1.2? Anyone setting multi-voice music and using the examples at 1.5.2
can easily use the
Typo
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1637
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1637: contexts} which will resul
This expresses pretty much what already appears
under Temporary polyphonic passages in Section 1.5.2
of the NR, although using rather more words. It
should not be repeated here. By all means replace
it with a reference to the appropriate part of 1.5.2.
The reason is as usual - the NR is already
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely
File Documentation/notation/vocal.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/8384043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode1632
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely:1632: cadence, or a measure or two.
Th
23 matches
Mail list logo
