[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: changes to Clef
From: |
Carl Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: changes to Clef |
Date: |
Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:53:38 -0700 |
Oops, I forgot to put my policy hat on. I will fix things up.
As I looked, the main point I checked was that the drum clef and tab clef
moved out of clefs and to the instrument-specific sections. I didn't check
the other stuff.
Again, I'm sorry about these mistakes. I'll fix it right now.
Thanks,
Carl
On 1/30/10 9:38 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Carl, why did you push the recent change to Clef?
>
> 1. no contractions, please. I'm not convinced about the new
> language there, anyway -- what about "(but are not required to
> be)" ?
>
> 2. we have a policy of "show, don't tell". Why did we remove
> \clef G, F, C from the example?
> If there's a desire to emphasize the abbreviated nature -- and
> really, "abbreviated" is not the right word, since G is not an
> abbreviation of "treble" -- a comment in the @lilypond would do
> this.
>
> 3. wrap lines at 72 chars, please. That's not always possible
> with scheme code, but it's definitely doable with normal texinfo.
>
> 4. why remove the pointer to ancient notation? I remember
> specifically discussing whether to include such
> sentence-references, as opposed to a @seealso.
>
> ... oh wait, it's still there; I just couldn't see it due to the
> long line.
>
> 5. don't refer to an "example above" if at all possible; the
> referred format is "text, verbatim, image". I'm not conviced we
> need to specifically need to mention g^8; I mean, we don't
> specifically mention treble^8, do we?
>
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham