Re: Doc: NR: 3.x Clarification for \keepWithTag and fix Typo in example (issue 279140043 by address@hidden)

[pkx166h]

Thanks Federico - see inline for my replies.


https://codereview.appspot.com/279140043/diff/40001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/279140043/diff/40001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode2313
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2313:
On 2016/02/18 22:51:46, fedelogy wrote:
> Sorry, I'm still confused. I cannot see any link between the
explanation above
> and the snippet below.

> The snippet below explains \tagGroup, which is already explained (and
much
> better) immediately after. And the four strings example is more
effective than
> A, B, C, D.

OK I'll remove it.

It wasn't clear in your request in the Tracker/email msg what exactly
the point of the example you gave was. As I saw no @lilypond (just an
@example) that used \tagGroup but we have @lilypond for all the other
'Tag' stuff (pushToTag, appendToTag, removeWithTag etc.) I assumed that
a reader would benfit from an example of this command as well.

> The above paragraph is just about how to use \keepWithTag (it's a
continuation
> of the previous paragraph about \removeWithTag).

Yes but as I said above, without a corresponding @lilypond (just an
@example) that I could see. For someone who doesn't *already* understand
Tags I thought this would be helpful.

> It suggests using one command
> (a single tag or a list of tag), and avoiding multiple \keepWithTag
commands on
> a single music expression, otherwise everything will be removed.

I don't understands this. My version just uses slightly different words
as far as I can tell and removes a lot of unnecessary repetition and
adds the odd article and adverb.

The para starts with the phrase 'Two or more..' (implies three, four,
five etc.), then in the example just uses first and second. What about
third, fourth and fifth? So I assumed that those third, fourth etc
filters would do nothing because the second filter would have cleared it
all out (so to speak) hence the word 'subsequent' to cope with the 'Two
or more'. Getting rid of personal pronouns and vague statements
("Usually you would rather want to ...") is all that I can see that has
been done with the last sentence.


> I must say that the original text is perfect,

Hardly. When I read the word 'Usually' at the start of a sentence, I
expect to see the cases when it isn't 'Usual'. I don't see that here.
Perhaps it is just some other person's idiomatic English, but that para
is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

Too many uses of the word 'Tag' is another - trying not to use the word
in the explanation of that word (or in this case command) that you are
defining helps clarity. That was really what I was trying to do here.

> except for the last sentence. An
> example is not really needed, but may help:

> music = \relative c'' {
>    \tag #'A { a4 a a a }
>    \tag #'B { b4 b b b }
>    \tag #'C { c4 c c c }
>    \tag #'D { d4 d d d }
> }

> \new Staff {
>    % print only A and B, not C and D
>    \keepWithTag #'(A B)
>    \music
> }

Thanks. I've added that one instead.

https://codereview.appspot.com/279140043/