2007/9/22, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 9/21/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Should we keep @refcommands independent from @commonprop ? For example, > > look at Tuplets. Do you like it as it is, or should we move > > > > \tupletUp \tupletDown etc > > > > inside the "Commonly tweaked properties" ? > > I vote for combine.
-1; the @refcommands shorcuts are much simpler than the \overrides (to understand, and to use), and therefore IMO they should be above @commonprop, just like they're now. Or, another idea, on the opposite: if they got merged with @commonprops, we should mention the extensive definition of each @refcomman, so that users could see by themselves a concrete application of some of the "commonly tweaked properties", and feel somehow "invited" to write their own shortcuts. The reason I'm mentioning that is because we already specify the full syntax on several pages,like in "Special NoteHeads", or "Improvisation". (If this option is eventually accepted, I'm ready to write the full explanation of each refcommand myself, btw) Valentin
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
