http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode846 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:846: change the state permanently. If I may make a suggestion for this whole paragraph? --snip-- In professional scores, voices are often kept apart for long periods - even if one or two notes actually coincide and could easily be printed as @emph{unisono}. Combining notes into a chord, or to print one voice as solo is therefore not ideal as the @code{\partcombine} function considers each note separately. For this reason, the @code{\partcombine} function can be overriden with the following commands: --snip-- I have moved that final sentence below the list http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono. Again do we @emph{} unisono? I assume this is a musical term and not just a mis-translation of foreign usage? http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode856 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:856: Combine the notes to a chord. There was much discussion on 'chord' vs 'not chord' unrelated to this, but still enough to worry some. So is 'chord' the correct term here? I have no preference but am just pre-empting discussion. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode860 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:860: The two voices are unisono. @emph{unisono} http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination strategy automatically determined. Can we be more descriptive on what the 'automatic' strategy is? Or we could simply say "Let the software decide which is the best option". I want to not use the word 'strategy'. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode874 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:874: @end itemize Now add the final sentence from above: All commands ending in @code{...Once} apply only to the following note. --- It is therefore implicit and unnecessary to state what the code that doesn't end in 'once' does. So I have removed that sentence. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode880 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:880: \partcombineChords e'^"chord" e | If we do change the word 'chord' above then we need to change it here too. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode891 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:891: c2 c If we're going to have bar checks then we need one on the last bar http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode897 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:897: \new Staff \partcombine \instrumentOne \instrumentTwo If we do keep this @lilypond (see comment below) I'd like to see {} after the new Staff for clarity. << \new Staff { \instrumentOne } \new Staff { \instrumentTwo } \new Staff { \partcombine \instrumentOne \instrumentTwo } http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode899 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:899: @end lilypond Maybe I have missed something but this looks a tad complicated for an @lilypond and would be better served as a snippet instead. We don't often use variables like this in @lilypond except when explicitly discussing variables. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel