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

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; 
<address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Doc: NR: 3.x Clarification for \keepWithTag and fix Typo 
inexample (issue 279140043 by address@hidden)


> On 2016/02/27 11:22:56, pkx166h wrote:
> > @David or Federico
>
> > Could one or you (or some other kind soul) explain the comment from
> David
> > regarding his explanation of when (not) to use
>
>
> > \fooTag A {a b c d}
> > over
> > \fooTag #'A {a b c d}
>
> > and when (not) to use
>
> > \fooTag A.B {a b c d}
> > \fooTag #'(A B) {a b c d}
>
> > I assume the reasons are the same, but David's explanation is a little
> over my
> > head.
>
> I was pointing out that historically we have not bothered choosing tag
> names compatible with LilyPond names.  So if one wants to propose _not_
> using #'... in the documentation, one would need to go through the whole
> code base and make sure that it actually uses LilyPond-compatible tag
> names everywhere in order not to confuse people.
>
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/279140043/

Or to give an example:

\tag #'Ex1
\tag Ex

are both OK, but

\tag Ex1

isn't, since the use of the digit makes the tagname not compatible with 
Lilypond naming.  So if you changed every example of \tag #' to \tag, you'd 
also need to be sure to check that the tagnames are compatible with Lilypond 
naming rules.

--
Phil Holmes