Re: Doc: More NR and LM additions based on user emails (issue3705042)

[tdanielsmusic]

Like Carl, I'm happy to approve this as it is, but I'd prefer to see a
comprehensive and correct explanation of the effect of inserting code
between alternatives.


http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely
File Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode2114
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:2114: objects to note heads, if
you remove the @code{Note_heads_engraver}
Like Carl, I prefer two sentences.

http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/repeats.itely
File Documentation/notation/repeats.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/1/Documentation/notation/repeats.itely#newcode151
Documentation/notation/repeats.itely:151: of the braces of the grouped
notes within an @address@hidden block, otherwise you will not
get the expected number of endings.  Any bar checks used inside
@address@hidden block must be placed in inside the braces of
each group of notes.}
Why is this all on one line?

I agree with Graham - it's too long.  Use his words with "should"
instead of "must".

http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/repeats.itely#newcode239
Documentation/notation/repeats.itely:239: @cindex repeats with ties
I agree with Carl.  If there is nothing special about bar checks would
it be correct to say, "if there are two or more alternatives nothing
should appear between the closing brace of one and the opening brace of
the next, or ..."

http://codereview.appspot.com/3705042/