[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Doc: LM - correct @example for Tweak Command (issue 140630043 by add
From: |
pkx166h |
Subject: |
Re: Doc: LM - correct @example for Tweak Command (issue 140630043 by address@hidden) |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:56:55 +0000 |
Reviewers: dak,
Message:
On 2014/09/15 07:26:45, dak wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/140630043/diff/1/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/140630043/diff/1/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely#newcode453
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:453: \tweak
@address@hidden address@hidden
The Google issue pointed out that this should be "LayoutObject" to
reflect the
proper case.
Yes it did. I was careless. Good job for patch review eh? :)
It is somewhat disconcerting that the Info page rendition (rather
than the HTML pages) will read LAYOUTOBJECT and LAYOUT-PROPERTY
anyway, as
that's the way @var placeholders are formatted. Still, I think
that's probably
the best we can do.
Would using @code{} be better - I've never dug that deep to know the
difference in terms of that it looks the same in PDF output?
You put in address@hidden instead of @var{value}. I think we are not
overly
consistent regarding that, but it is worth mentioning that something
like (see
Learning Manual in Tweaks)
? This *is* Learning Manual in tweaks. If you look at the example above
it is in the TexInfo format of
--snip--
...So the simple form
of the @code{\tweak} command is
@example
\tweak @var{layout-property} address@hidden
@end example
--snip--
So I just copied that.
Would something like @var{#value} be better? As far as the output goes
it would just put the '#' sign in the @var monospaced font.
\override TextSpanner.bound-details.left.text
= \markup { \small \bold Slower }
(can also be used as a tweak) gets along perfectly fine without a #
sign, so the
# is really an integral part of @var{value} and not part of the \tweak
syntax.
Yes I see (just about) but isn't that the same as using
'\tweak layout-object.layout-property value'
as also indicated in thee tracker by the submitter?
Thanks
Description:
Doc: LM - correct @example for Tweak Command
Issue 4101
Corrected existing 'long form' example for Syntax Consistency
Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/140630043/
Affected files (+1, -1 lines):
M Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
Index: Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
diff --git a/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
b/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
index
137a49828600a5900da1b9ffcf8bbb425a41829a..35f15b78b2987aea2620ff005cad753bd96cfbc4
100644
--- a/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
+++ b/Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely
@@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ the original event:
This long form of the @code{\tweak} command can be described as
@example
-\tweak @address@hidden @var{value}
+\tweak @address@hidden address@hidden
@end example
@cindex tuplets, nested