Re: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
The part of notation.pdf before the tables grows from 613 to 622 pages, 2%, even with the closing }s always on their own line. https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode243 Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:243: \key aes \major On 2015/06/22 11:04:44, Trevor Daniels wrote: I wonder if it might be preferable to place the \key outside the \relative? I thought it better to keep the \key near the notes here, because we show appropriate placement of the \relative around inner structures in files like /notation/staff.itely https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
LGTM Thanks Keith https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode330
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:330: b c }
On 2015/06/22 11:04:44, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Are you proposing we change this?
Yes, proposing to consider it.
I put the summary on the issue
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4371#c8
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode2324
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:2324: c4( c^\markup { \tiny \sharp }
d4.) c8 }
On 2015/06/22 11:04:44, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Again, using | as a prettifying aid to the detriment of its primary
purpose.
The first one does nothing useful and the last bar is not checked.
Yep. The |-at-front style is much easier to type consistently, and
compensates for missing indentation at broken bars, so I wanted to see
what people thought about it in the docs. (The initial bar check helps
often enough at the star of sequences in variables.)
For the manual, we can just do careful indentation.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely
File Documentation/notation/pitches.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely#newcode407
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:407: cis'' cis'' cis''! cis''? c''
c'' c''! c''?
On 2015/06/22 11:04:44, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Wouldn't \relative be preferable here? And in most of the examples in
this
section.
Yes, I thought we might stay in absolute mode when thinking explicitly
about pitches for the first section of Pitches, but the '' are more
distracting than \relative
It should be \relative c'' {...} so that the first pitch octave doesn't
obscure the points of these examples.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
I'm generally happy with this, but I've made quite a few nit-picking
comments. I think it is important that the manuals rigorously show a
consistent style, particularly with regard to indentation and the
placement of block delimiters. We frequently criticise users presenting
examples on the mailing list for bad layout, so I think the manuals must
be impeccable in this respect.
Trevor
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely
File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode243
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:243: \key aes \major
I wonder if it might be preferable to place the \key outside the
\relative? This would be in keeping with the emerging opinion that we
should encourage placing \relative blocks around smaller sections of
notes.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode646
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:646: | c2 \acciaccatura b16
c2 }
This might look prettier but it also omits a bar check at the end of the
last bar. I'm not convinced this is a good idea.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode962
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:962: | r4 c e g8.\p c f
a16( c e g4-. c f a) }
Last bar is not checked. Bad advice.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode1420
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:1420: So far we have always
used @code{\relative} to define pitches.
This is not true. There are a couple of examples earlier where you have
used absolute pitches.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode330
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:330: b c }
The LilyPond style, I believe, is to place the terminating } in line
with the corresponding \ of \relative. Are you proposing we change
this?
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode2324
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:2324: c4( c^\markup { \tiny \sharp }
d4.) c8 }
Again, using | as a prettifying aid to the detriment of its primary
purpose. The first one does nothing useful and the last bar is not
checked.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode2439
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:2439: ees,2.~\)\mf ees4 r8 }
Needs final bar check and } on following line.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely
File Documentation/notation/ancient.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely#newcode871
Documentation/notation/ancient.itely:871: ais bis }
Misplaced }
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#newcode357
Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely:357: }
Can you really leave out the ... here?
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#newcode733
Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely:733: }
Ditto
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely
File Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely#newcode497
Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely:497: d fis a1\treCorde }
Misplaced }
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely#newcode525
Documentation/notation/keyboards.itely:525: \bar |. }
Misplaced }
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely
File Documentation/notation/pitches.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely#newcode407
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:407: cis'' cis'' cis''! cis''? c''
c'' c''! c''?
Wouldn't \relative be preferable here? And in most of the examples in
this section.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely#newcode1280
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:1280: \clef treble_8 c'4 }
Misplaced }
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely#newcode1443
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:1443: a2 b }
Misplaced }
And several more following.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/
Re: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode330
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:330: b c }
On 2015/06/22 11:04:44, Trevor Daniels wrote:
The LilyPond style, I believe, is to place the terminating } in line
with the
corresponding \ of \relative. Are you proposing we change this?
This is pretty much my objection here as well. When \relative is a line
starter, it's very much
\relative {
...
}
that we want to see. That's consistent with the indentation stlyes of
many programming languages. Scheme is not even an exception here since
Scheme may start off with (((sth and so finishing with sth))) is at
least symmetric.
Yes, there will be an additional cost in additional pages. This cost
has to factor in our decision whether to become more explicit: I don't
think that we want to have this change in presented indentation style.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
I started this with the belief that relative octave notation is easier
to write (for some people) but absolute octave notation is easier to
read, and thus the expectation that many examples would be simpler using
absolute pitches, or the new \fixed c'' {}.
However, there were not so many examples where a fixed octave reference
would really help.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely
File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode912
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:912:
One of only two examples in Learning where a single \relative was bad
advice.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely
File Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode625
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:625: the passing note and a
slur:
This pair of examples changes the entry order of the pitches, so would
be easier to read with \fixed c'
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode646
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:646: }
The example is a case where a single \relative applied to parallel
voices might be practical.
It would line up better with its re-arrangement below if we use \fixed
c'
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode668
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:668:
The other example in Learning where the single outer \relative was
really bad advice.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
Reviewers: Trevor Daniels, Message: On 2015/05/17 21:54:07, Trevor Daniels wrote: But I think if are to make this change it would also be good to say what leaving out \relative means. It was difficult to do this before as all the examples left it out (apparently). Now we can do it. Placing a brief explanation at the beginning of 1.2.1 would explain the mysterious 's in those first examples of code. The tutorial almost never leaves out \relative, but I did add at the start of 'Pitches' an explanation of the system within which c' denotes middle C Description: Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/ Affected files (+562, -487 lines): M Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi M Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely M Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely M Documentation/learning/tutorial.itely M Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely M Documentation/usage/running.itely ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Doc: avoid implicit \relative; issue 4371 (issue 237340043 by k-ohara5...@oco.net)
I'm not opposed to the change to explicit \relative; it avoids having to
explain why it was omitted in the examples, and makes the example code
more exactly correspond to the code obtained by clicking on the image.
But I think if are to make this change it would also be good to say what
leaving out \relative means. It was difficult to do this before as all
the examples left it out (apparently). Now we can do it. Placing a
brief explanation at the beginning of 1.2.1 would explain the mysterious
's in those first examples of code.
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/10006/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/10006/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode2124
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:2124: \relative c' {
no leading spaces
https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
