Hello, On 24 March 2012 08:19, <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > On 2012/03/23 21:46:41, Pavel Roskin wrote: >> >> OK, I'll use make-engraver in the next revision. I guess I'll need to > > strip all >> >> Lilypond 2.14 compatibility stuff if this snippet is to be a part of > > the >> >> Lilypond documentation. > > > In LilyPond itself, it makes sense to document the latest version. If > people read 2.16 documentation, they can't expect to see stuff that is > guaranteed to work under 2.14. > > It is not uncommon for some new features to be only discernible from > regtests. That is not really good. This is the current state for > Scheme engravers. It would be good to have some nice examples for > Scheme engravers in the documentation. > > This particular case is, in my opinion, too complex for either > documentation or a targeted regtest. It is LSR material, or should > become part of LilyPond proper if one can think of a good way. Note > that we have snippets in the LilyPond documentation/repository as well: > those can use the newest features. That would be the proper place, I > think. > > We still need to get Scheme engravers into the main documentation.
We have this http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1995 We could incorporate 'Scheme stuff' via this. As I;ve always said, although I don't understand this from a technical point of view if someone can articulate what they want in text form I can do the texinfo 'stuff' to get it in the doc. I'm not sure if the NR is the correct place as opposed to a new @node (or similar) in Extending or whatever. James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel