On 5/4/10 11:19 AM, "Mark Polesky" <[email protected]> wrote: > Trevor Daniels wrote: >> A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on >> input files would be good. I think bar checks are at >> least as important as a \version statement, which is >> mentioned there. > > I think a better place would be in a new @subsection at the > top of 2.1 "Single staff notation", just before 2.1.1 > "Accidentals and key signatures". Here's my proposed text: This looks good to me. Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Graham Percival
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Graham Percival
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Mark Polesky
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Trevor Daniels
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. James Lowe
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Trevor Daniels
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Mark Polesky
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Trevor Daniels
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. James Lowe
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. James Lowe
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Carl Sorensen
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Mark Polesky
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Graham Percival
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Trevor Daniels
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Graham Percival
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Mark Polesky
- Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code. Mats Bengtsson
