Mats Bengtsson wrote:
I'm not sure what the conclusion is, but maybe we can reformulate the
original question into:
- Should we introduce some new concepts under @seealso or should this
always be done in the main text?
Let's go with "main text". I'm not completely dead-set on this option,
b
Graham Percival wrote:
At the very least, I want it clear which sentence refer to the
Notation Reference, and which sentences refer to the other parts of
the docs.
... I _really_ think this is completely unnecessary, though. And if
you want to add full sentences to every single notation re
Eyolf Østrem wrote:
On 15.11.2007 (16:19), Graham Percival wrote:
... I _really_ think this is completely unnecessary, though. And if you
want to add full sentences to every single notation reference @ref{}, I
assume you want to do the same for every @lsr{dir,snippet}, every
@internalsref
On 15.11.2007 (16:19), Graham Percival wrote:
>
> At the very least, I want it clear which sentence refer to the Notation
> Reference, and which sentences refer to the other parts of the docs.
Agreed.
> ... I _really_ think this is completely unnecessary, though. And if you
> want to add fu
On 14.11.2007 (16:18), Graham Percival wrote:
> I think we should have a consistent format for the NR; which one do
> people prefer?
> I have a slight preference against #2 (sentences everywhere), since IMO
I know you have, and you know this is the one I prefer. Giving a hint at
WHY one shoul
Eyolf Østrem wrote:
On 14.11.2007 (16:18), Graham Percival wrote:
I have a slight preference against #2 (sentences everywhere), since IMO
I know you have, and you know this is the one I prefer. Giving a hint at
WHY one should seealso ain't fluff. This isn't dungeons and dragons ("you
are in a
Good questions!
>
> (another overdue discussion question, sorry)
IMHO this isn't a problem. The crucial thing to remember is that
program documentation isn't for programmers (they have comments in the
working code), its for us non-programmers who struggle with programs
like lilypond because it req
2007/11/15, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have a slight preference against #2 (sentences everywhere), since IMO
> in most cases it's obvious why somebody might want to look at other
> section.
I don't! I like full sentences :)
> Option #3 is preferring no explanation at all, but allow
As always, GDP:
http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/
(another overdue discussion question, sorry)
Take a look at the "see also" sections in
NR 1.1.3 Displaying pitches: Instrument transpositions
and
NR 1.2.1 Writing rhythms: Durations
In 1.1.3, we have a short, compact format:
No
