On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:33:24 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Using @lilypondfile forces the doc-writer to make sure the snippet
> > is actually there.
>
> You mean the documentation compiler does not complain about undefined
> re
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:50:32 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, but that does not even make sense. I have no idea how you get
> this absurd notion. Care to come up with a quotation from one of my
> postings that would support your interpretation?
From
http://lists.gnu.org/a
Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. Since I said that I'd wait until Monday, and I guess it's
> Monday somewhere in the world.
>
> Most of David's arguments were actually in /favor/ of removing @lsr; he
> just didn't realize that @lsr produced a reference instead of the
> actual sni
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:43:20 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 26 avril 2008 __ 03:53 -0700, Graham Percival a __crit :
> > right? Why would the formatting be different in the Snippet
> > document than in the manuals? Just make it
> > @emph{\NAME\}
> > or something like
Le samedi 26 avril 2008 à 03:53 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:05:40 +0200
> John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, why do we need a CMD? We should use the same formatting
> > > for all of them, so an argument-less command like [doctitle]
> > > should
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:05:40 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, why do we need a CMD? We should use the same formatting
> > for all of them, so an argument-less command like [doctitle]
> > should be sufficient.
>
> No, we certainly won't use the same formatting in Snippet
On 24/04/2008, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:50 +0200
> John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, no -- I'm saying that I don't think it's worth linking to a
> specific snippet. As long as people are directed to the Foo
> snippet list, that's all we need. The extra com
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:29:54 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The idea of a cross reference is to get me where I want directly.
> > If it is in the vicinity of interesting material, nice (hopefully
> > everything is intere
Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:40:58 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Having to specify a particular snippet makes sure that this snippet
>> (and thus the construct) indeed appears in the docs, and that its
>> absence will be noticed when
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:40:58 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having to specify a particular snippet makes sure that this snippet
> (and thus the construct) indeed appears in the docs, and that its
> absence will be noticed when compiling the documentation.
You misunderstand. @li
Graham Percival wrote
Does anybody really want to keep @lsr{} (in addition to
@lsrdir{})? It isn't used in any finished GDP sections, and I'm
90% certain it isn't worth keeping.
@lsrdir{Pitches, Pitches} points to the whole collection of pitch
snippets.
@lsr{pitches, adding-ambitus-per-voice.l
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/4/24 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> The idea of a cross reference is to get me where I want directly. If it
>> is in the vicinity of interesting material, nice (hopefully everything
>> is interesting). But "it is good for you to
2008/4/24 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The idea of a cross reference is to get me where I want directly. If it
> is in the vicinity of interesting material, nice (hopefully everything
> is interesting). But "it is good for you to wade through unrelated,
> closely situated material" i
Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> b) we *want* users to skim through the snippet list. LilyPond can
> do things that most people never think of -- even I get surprised
> from time to time when I see neat snippets. (IIRC the last time
> was about a month ago)
Sorry, this argument doe
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:13:03 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a lazy user, I always prefer being pointed to a specific snippet
> rather than a bunch of snippets I won't take the time to read.
Addendum: pretend that you're a lazy user, interested in
accidentals. Look at
2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> c) if a snippet is extremely relevant, we'll include it directly
> with @lilypondfile.
Yes indeed. OK, I'm running out of counter-arguments :)
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypon
Graham Percival schrieb:
No, @lsr{} is completely distinct from @lilypondfile. @lsr{}
would create a link to a specific snippet; it would be used in the
@seealso
Snippets: @lsr{}
Yes, I know, but the functionality is quite the same in my opinion: to
give access to a specific snippet releva
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:13:03 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Counter-arguments welcome for the next three or four days. :)
>
> As a lazy user, I always prefer being pointed to a specific snippet
> rather than a bunch
Graham Percival wrote:
> We could then rename @lsrdir{} to @rlsr{} and use the same format
> as all the other @rfoo{} macros. That would simply the doc
> source.
>
> Unless I hear voiciferous complaints before Monday, I'll remove
> @lsr{}.
Very good. We'll be able to replace @lsr with @rlsr as
2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Counter-arguments welcome for the next three or four days. :)
No, really? :)
As a lazy user, I always prefer being pointed to a specific snippet
rather than a bunch of snippets I won't take the time to read. There's
no way @lsr can't be more use
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:50 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > We could then rename @lsrdir{} to @rlsr{} and use the same format
> > as all the other @rfoo{} macros. That would simply the doc
> > source.
> >
> > Unless I hear voiciferous complaints befo
No, @lsr{} is completely distinct from @lilypondfile. @lsr{}
would create a link to a specific snippet; it would be used in the
@seealso
Snippets: @lsr{}
section.
Cheers,
- Graham
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:19:13 +0300
Till Rettig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm fine with this -- the @lilypondfi
I'm fine with this -- the @lilypondfile is a much more powerful feature
that does almost the same.
Till
Graham Percival schrieb:
Does anybody really want to keep @lsr{} (in addition to
@lsrdir{})? It isn't used in any finished GDP sections, and I'm
90% certain it isn't worth keeping.
@lsrdir
Does anybody really want to keep @lsr{} (in addition to
@lsrdir{})? It isn't used in any finished GDP sections, and I'm
90% certain it isn't worth keeping.
@lsrdir{Pitches, Pitches} points to the whole collection of pitch
snippets.
@lsr{pitches, adding-ambitus-per-voice.ly, Ambitus} (or somethi
24 matches
Mail list logo
