In general, I'm in favour of 2) and I just learned that you can use ^ and _ also for ties (and that ^[ and _[ is allowed syntax but doesn't do anything else than [ ).
/Mats Graham Percival wrote:
GDP page: http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/ About half the subsections in NR 1 and 2 are about material whose direction can be controlled. ie ^ _, along with \fooUp \fooNeutral, and \override Foo #'direction. There's two ways we could handle this info: 1) Add an explanation and example of controlling the placement in every one of these subsections. 2) Add one sentence with a link to a central place which discusses directions. I prefer #2, of course; it makes the docs easier to maintain, and frankly easier to read as well -- there's no point in having duplicate material in tons of subsections. There's an example of this in NR 1.2.1.4 Ties at the moment. About halfway down the page, just before the "Predefined commands", there's the sample sentence+link that I was suggesting in #2, along with the old material which would be deleted. If there's a huge outcry about this, particularly from doc helpers, then I'm prepared to go with #1 instead -- but I want the docs to be consistent. Either they all have such examples, or none. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
-- ============================================= Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing School of Electrical Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe ============================================= _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user