Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-06 Thread Mats Bengtsson
Graham Percival wrote: On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: Trevor Daniels wrote: A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on input files would be good. I think bar checks are at least as important as a \version statement, which is mentioned there.

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Graham Percival
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Mark Polesky wrote: > First, if you haven't looked at it yet, you should know that > one direct result of the patch is the increase in length of > many of the examples (vertically).  Graham has already > expressed his dissatisfaction with this, since it increases >

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Graham Percival
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:51 PM >> >> or as a new 2.1.7. > > I suppose this would do, as long as the previous examples > didn't include bar checks. The only part that might need them are some of the slur / phrasing sl

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Mark Polesky
Graham Percival wrote: > If we need it for 2.3 Songs... which I suppose we should > do... then I'd put it as either the last item inside > 2.1.6 Advanced rhythmic commands, or as a new 2.1.7. A bar check is hardly an "advanced rhythmic command"... - Mark ___

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Trevor Daniels
Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:51 PM On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: Trevor Daniels wrote: > A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on > input files would be good. I think bar checks are at > least as important as a \version statement,

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Graham Percival
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: > Trevor Daniels wrote: > > A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on > > input files would be good. I think bar checks are at > > least as important as a \version statement, which is > > mentioned there. > > I think a bett

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread James Lowe
Hello, sorry to respond to myself. James Lowe wrote: Hello Trevor Daniels wrote: I'd be happy with this too. Trevor Thanks all. I'll get a patch made some time this evening. James I see this has already been done. Sorry for the noise. James _

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread James Lowe
Hello Trevor Daniels wrote: I'd be happy with this too. Trevor Thanks all. I'll get a patch made some time this evening. James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Mark Polesky
I posted a new patch set incorporating most of the requests you guys made. Please have a look at the new one and let me know what you think: http://codereview.appspot.com/1056041 Thanks. - Mark ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@g

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 5/4/10 11:19 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: > Trevor Daniels wrote: >> A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on >> input files would be good. I think bar checks are at >> least as important as a \version statement, which is >> mentioned there. > > I think a better place would be i

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-05 Thread Trevor Daniels
I'd be happy with this too. Trevor - Original Message - From: "Mark Polesky" To: "Carl Sorensen" ; "lilypond-devel" ; "Trevor Daniels" Cc: "Graham Percival" ; "James Lowe" Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:19 PM Subjec

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-04 Thread Mark Polesky
Trevor Daniels wrote: > A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on > input files would be good. I think bar checks are at > least as important as a \version statement, which is > mentioned there. I think a better place would be in a new @subsection at the top of 2.1 "Single staff notat

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-04 Thread Trevor Daniels
James Lowe wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:19 AM Trevor Daniels wrote: Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM Trevor Daniels wrote: Carl Sorensen wrote: I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get into; we ought to

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-04 Thread James Lowe
Hello, Trevor Daniels wrote: Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM Trevor Daniels wrote: Carl Sorensen wrote: I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get into; we ought to start it right from the first. I would ag

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-04 Thread Trevor Daniels
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM Trevor Daniels wrote: Carl Sorensen wrote: I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get into; we ought to start it right from the first. I would agree with this. In fact I put b

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-03 Thread Mark Polesky
Trevor Daniels wrote: >> I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece >> is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get >> into; we ought to start it right from the first. > > I would agree with this. In fact I put bar checks into > quite a few of the examples in the LM originall

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Graham Percival
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 06:10:21PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:49 PM > >> On 5/2/10 4:45 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: >> >>> * Use bar-checks (`|') only when barring is unclear. >> >> I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than o

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Mark Polesky
Graham Percival wrote: >> If anyone is up to it, I'd like someone to look over the >> patch to see if I've made anything worse. > > I started looking, and saw some questionable stuff. I'll > take a longer look later today, after I wake up and have > coffee. (the patch is at http://codereview.apps

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Trevor Daniels
Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:49 PM On 5/2/10 4:45 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: * Use bar-checks (`|') only when barring is unclear. I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get into; we ought to start it right f

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 5/2/10 4:45 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: > * Use bar-checks (`|') only when barring is unclear. I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get into; we ought to start it right from the first. Thanks, Carl __

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Graham Percival
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 12:15:17PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Also need to specify default indenting is 2 spaces. That's a pre-GDP rule. I'm sure it's in the CG already. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org ht

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Graham Percival
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 03:45:49AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: > So I guess I'm working towards a more formal standard for > LilyPond code formatting. 1) wait for GLISS. 2) write/edit a scheme or python program to do this. 3) can we get bloody 2.14 out the bloody door before starting yet another bl

Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Trevor Daniels
Message - From: "Mark Polesky" To: "lilypond-devel" Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 11:45 AM Subject: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. So I guess I'm working towards a more formal standard for LilyPond code formatting. I combed through the LM attempting to impr

[PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

2010-05-02 Thread Mark Polesky
So I guess I'm working towards a more formal standard for LilyPond code formatting. I combed through the LM attempting to improve the ly code that's already there. In the process I gleaned what I think are some reasonable standards (some of which are already in CG 4.3.4 -- see below). If anyone