On 02/04/2008, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for the doc-ness of snippets... this is where I wish that we > had been a bit more cautious about marking things as "docs". Any > snippet that appears in the manual directly should of course > conform to our standards (although since it's easy to fix these > later, I'm not being strict about this) > > Ideally, snippets which appear in the Snippet list in the docs > should also conform to our standards.
I agree. So far, I've restricted my changes mainly to spelling and grammar, with a few rewrites for particularly glaring examples such as contemporary-glissando.ly. > As for other snippets... I'm not too concerned. I certainly don't > think that we should withhold snippets from LSR until they > rigorously match our guidelines. It would be nice if the LSR > editors could rewrite every single snippet that people submit to > make it match our guidelines, but I'm not certain you have that > amount of time -- and even if you *do* have the time, I'm certain > that I could find better uses for it. :) Though I've tweaked a few examples mentioned on -user, I wasn't for a moment advocating extending GDP guidelines to cover general LSR snippets. It would be a mammoth task and take up far too much valuable time. :) Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
