David et al.
On 3 December 2011 13:59, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> We have the following patch in staging (and likely soon in master)
>
> commit d11e23cca2df1267b25c86d96a4dcffa957a7a55
> Author: James Lowe <james.l...@datacore.com>
> Date: Sat Dec 3 09:42:02 2011 +0000
>
> Doc: NR 1.6.2 - Staff Symbol
>
> Simplified the \override constructions in @lilypond examples.
>
> A first step for the forthcoming patch for 1935
>
> Agreed with by Trevor and Graham.
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/notation/staff.itely
> b/Documentation/notation/staff.i
> index 052254e..bbf1327 100644
> --- a/Documentation/notation/staff.itely
> +++ b/Documentation/notation/staff.itely
> @@ -431,9 +431,7 @@ staff. For an explanation, refer to the snippet
> section in
> @ref{Clef}.
>
> @lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2]
> -\new Staff \with {
> - \override StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3
> -}
> +\override Staff.StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3
> { d4 d d d }
> @end lilypond
>
>
> What is the idea behind that?
The idea was that the patch I am working on to document the new 'internal
legder lines' meant I wanted to do some re-arranging of the section as well
as give new examples incorporating this new feature.
I was making a kind of 'two step' change, so that when I finally presented
a significantly updated section it was not including the noise of some
simplification of examples.
I'd checked with Trevor and Graham (as the commit messages says) that we
were ok with removing a \new Staff { \with ..} construct to just including
the 'Staff' in the override (in this case). Functionally it didn't seem to
do anything _and_ I had checked by making a full doc build and nothing
broke (I did it again this morning too before I pushed).
So all that _should_ have changed was the unnecessary \new Staff { \with }
had been removed.
> This changes the examples from something
> that works standalone to something that bombs out with
>
> lilypond /tmp/xxx.ly
> GNU LilyPond 2.15.21
> Processing `/tmp/xxx.ly'
> Parsing...
> /tmp/xxx.ly:1:0: error: syntax error, unexpected \override
>
> \override Staff.StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3
>
> It only works inside of more complex music expressions, and it is rather
> bad style to change the Staffsymbol inside of music expressions anyway.
>
Not sure what 'bad style' means here, but the idea was to simplify the
example without unnecessary verbiage in the @lilyponds
> For example, it won't work timely if a parallel voice starts with a
> \grace, not even if you explicitly instantiate all voices.
>
Not sure what that has to do with this section in the NR showing how to
modify the staff symbol.
>
> Why are changes like that "agreed with" in the light of a "forthcoming
> patch"?
>
Because when I need advise about a change in the documentation style I tend
to go to Graham (Doc Meister) and Trevor (much more experienced with Doc
than I and helped mentor me too) so as to not give too much noise. I could
have just dumped all this in one patch but then have been accused (perhaps)
of doing too much in one go.
As I said, it didn't break doc build and I intended to make these changes
anyway in the final patch, this was supposed to just keep the doc as it was
while I finish working on the much larger patch and make the review process
easier.
Nothing sinister about it, and am happy to revert it but don't understand
why this is bad. Sure the new example is much 'simpler' than having write
all the \new Staff { with }, especially when I as a LP user want to write
single system scores where I would probably never ever use \new Staff {
\with.
--
--
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
