Re: Doc: Various to LM and NR from user email threads (issue3581041)

[Carl . D . Sorensen]

On 2010/12/11 16:33:48, pkx166h wrote:
> I hope this is the right method to have a discussion on Rietveld, I
have added
> my own comments/responses to yours inline.

Yes, this is a very good way to do it.

You can also just add a comment in the patchset.

http://codereview.appspot.com/3581041/diff/1/Documentation/notation/repeats.itely#newcode150
> Documentation/notation/repeats.itely:150: @rprogram{An extra staff
appears}.  Do
> not place bar checks outside
> On 2010/12/11 00:36:29, Carl wrote:
> > I think this is awkward.
> >
> > I think it would be better to do the following:
> >
> > 1) Put barchecks inside the alternatives in the example.

> I know that we were trying to avoid bar checks on single measures -
this was/is
> CG policy

But this isn't a single measure.  There are three measures in the
example.  Bar checks *should* be used here, although they're not
required.


> and bar checks are not mandatory anyway (helpful but not a
> requirement) so add nothing to an example other than this one case. If
I put
> them here, then I have to put them throughout the other examples.

In my opinion, we should be moving toward bar checks in examples where
it is helpful, rather than as a mindless policy requiring consistency in
all cases.

This particular case is a case where a user made a mistake by copying an
example and doing what he thought was right.  If the bar check were
inside the alternative, the mistake would not have been made.  So I
think it's a positive change.


> I take the
> point that you might think it better to show an example which I could
for
> instance with an @example but I'd like some opinion on that because we
could
> then start setting precedence on showing what NOT to do if you see
what I mean?

To me the precedent is set by virtue of the fact that a user made the
mistake.

I agree we don't want to show what not to do in general.  We could
probably have avoided the problem if the bar check were just in the
alternatives.



http://codereview.appspot.com/3581041/