On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 01:12:30PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote: > >I'm not too fussed about that, but the second line should be indented by > >two spaces to indicate that it's a continuation of the previous line > >(i.e. not starting its own bar). I certainly wouldn't object to having > >an explicit duration, though! > > No problem. This isn't covered in the CG, AFAICS.
Yeah, it's part of the unofficial "policy" that I never got around to writing down. Sorry. > >I'm not fond of having an explicit line-width. Could this be done by > >either editing the snippet, or giving a papersize option instead? > > It's taken me far too long to work out what's going on here. ---snip issues 776 and 1691--- > My suggestion is to use an explicit line-width with a > comment above saying something like "@c Line-width is used below > because of Issue 766. If that's fixed, it can be removed.". ok, let's do that. > If we wait for issues like that to be fixed to improve the docs, > we could have grotty looking docs forever... True. It's a shame that there isn't more interest in working on "maintainability" problems, but that's just how things are. > >Please make this an > >@example > > OK - willdo. Just think all the boxes are a bit unnecessary. I'd be fine with distinguishing between "quick url box" and "lilypond material box". I'd like it if the url was indentend on its own line, but didn't have the yellow box. ETA: 1 hour if you know what you're doing with texinfo and css; otherwise 10 hours of frustration. (could you add this as a tracker issue so we don't forget?) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
