Re: patch; scm/music-types.scm

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 14:29:48 +0200
Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > Then there are some things which I can make guesses about.  BarCheck
> > obviously has something to do with |  but I don't know exactly
> > what the relationship is.
> 
> | is a barcheck. You can tell from lily/parser.yy

Umm, actually I can't.  :)

I can still take care of most of them.

> The target group would be skilled users, that only need a few words to
> put them on the right track.

OK.
 
> 2. To top that it would be nice to have syntax descriptions for all music
> things (just how it is entered, not so much how to use it, that's a
> job for a user manual), so that we always have a generated "reference
> manual" for the input syntax.

Gulp.  Maybe I should have stuck to the user manual.

> 3. Finally, a pointer into the reference manual and/or glossary, if
> applicable, would be nice, eg. an index keyword, or a node reference.
> (Maybe we should add a macro for that, eg. @usermanref{Relative
> octaves}.)

I was wondering about that... _can_ I reference specific parts
of the user manual from scm/music-types?  So far I've just
said "see user manual", but having a link (in the html version)
would be nicer.
 
> 4. Perhaps it would be a good idea to separate these three
>    descriptions into paragraphs
> 
> 
> "Description: Tie event produces ties between notes.
> 
> Syntax: @address@hidden ~ @var{note}} or @code{<address@hidden> ~
> <address@hidden>} in \notes mode.
> 
> See also: @usermanref{Ties}, @glossaryref{Tie}"

That looks good.  I'll write stuff that way.

> - Beam syntax: [ ] (not \[ \])

Oops.  I went overboard on the special chars (ie writing \\ instead of \ )
and I forgot to check that part to make sure it looked right.


Cheers,
- Graham