Like Carl, I'm happy to approve this as it is, but I'd prefer to see a comprehensive and correct explanation of the effect of inserting code between alternatives.
http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely File Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode2114 Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:2114: objects to note heads, if you remove the @code{Note_heads_engraver} Like Carl, I prefer two sentences. http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/repeats.itely File Documentation/notation/repeats.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/repeats.itely#newcode151 Documentation/notation/repeats.itely:151: of the braces of the grouped notes within an @co...@bs{}alternative} block, otherwise you will not get the expected number of endings. Any bar checks used inside @co...@bs{}alternative} block must be placed in inside the braces of each group of notes.} Why is this all on one line? I agree with Graham - it's too long. Use his words with "should" instead of "must". http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/repeats.itely#newcode239 Documentation/notation/repeats.itely:239: @cindex repeats with ties I agree with Carl. If there is nothing special about bar checks would it be correct to say, "if there are two or more alternatives nothing should appear between the closing brace of one and the opening brace of the next, or ..." http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
