On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Graham Percival <[email protected]> wrote: > I would have liked to see this in codereview before it showed up in git > master.
Feel free to revert it. > changes.tely: > - why is \include "still recommended"? Because \include works with "arabic.ly". > pitches.itely: > - if \include is still recommended, then why is \language discussed first? Because it's way simpler. > - I see a @noindent, which is heavily discouraged by the doc policy. > - I see @exmaples, which are also discouraged by the doc policy. Have you had a look at the current doc? http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/writing-pitches#note-names-in-other-languages I see "talking through the code", which is heavily discouraged by the doc policy and IMO much worse than having a clean @example block. > - does \language support scoping? If so, it would be nice to see that > discussed. Nope. That's why it isn't discussed. (As Neil pointed out, scoping wouldn't be much of an interesting feature in this case.) > - perhaps we should not consider arabic.ly as a "language", but rather > as an "instrument (or music) style", like bagpipes.ly or gregorian.ly. > If so, then this is the appropriate time to discuss it. So I suggested. But since I wouldn't make this choice on my own, in the meantime I updated the docs in a way that preserved the logic we used so far: not only is arabic.ly still regarded as a language, but the languages are still referred to with a .ly extension in the table (which wouldn't make any sense if we emphasized and recommended the \language command). I believe that deprecating the "language.ly" approach deserves more thoughts and discussions, and before we do that, this commit fills the gap. Cheers. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
