On 12/22/09 8:14 AM, "percival.music...@gmail.com"
<percival.music...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, given the support for this idea, I'm ok with in theory. Comments
> below.
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/179121/diff/1002/3
> File Documentation/learning/tutorial.itely (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/179121/diff/1002/3#newcode51
> Documentation/learning/tutorial.itely:51:
> Let's keep the separate @example, so that we can write
> @example
> \version "@version{}"
> @{
> ...
Sounds great. @version{} isn't listed in the CG. I'll add it.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/179121/diff/1002/3#newcode66
> Documentation/learning/tutorial.itely:66:
> This isn't important enough to have on this page; if we have too many
> warnings, people will start ignoring them.
>
OK.
> http://codereview.appspot.com/179121/diff/1002/3#newcode779
> Documentation/learning/tutorial.itely:779:
> Separate @node @subsection, please. The \version has nothing to do with
> omitting braces.
>
> Alternately, we could rename "omitting braces" to "omitted material".
I thought about the separate subsection and decided it was too short.
I'll be happy to change the section name.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/179121/diff/1002/3#newcode855
> Documentation/learning/tutorial.itely:855:
> Could we also get a paragraph about \version in 1.2.2? Also, remove
> 2.4.2 entirely.
>
Yes, I'll do that.
All the changes have been made. A new version is pushed:
http://codereview.appspot.com/179121
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
