[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: renamed snippets
From: |
Neil Puttock |
Subject: |
Re: renamed snippets |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:36:09 +0100 |
On 02/04/2008, Graham Percival <address@hidden> wrote:
> As for the doc-ness of snippets... this is where I wish that we
> had been a bit more cautious about marking things as "docs". Any
> snippet that appears in the manual directly should of course
> conform to our standards (although since it's easy to fix these
> later, I'm not being strict about this)
>
> Ideally, snippets which appear in the Snippet list in the docs
> should also conform to our standards.
I agree. So far, I've restricted my changes mainly to spelling and
grammar, with a few rewrites for particularly glaring examples such as
contemporary-glissando.ly.
> As for other snippets... I'm not too concerned. I certainly don't
> think that we should withhold snippets from LSR until they
> rigorously match our guidelines. It would be nice if the LSR
> editors could rewrite every single snippet that people submit to
> make it match our guidelines, but I'm not certain you have that
> amount of time -- and even if you *do* have the time, I'm certain
> that I could find better uses for it. :)
Though I've tweaked a few examples mentioned on -user, I wasn't for a
moment advocating extending GDP guidelines to cover general LSR
snippets. It would be a mammoth task and take up far too much valuable
time. :)
Regards,
Neil