James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes:
> David,
>
>
> I've not read through your response thoroughly as I have to go out now
> but I defer to your knowledge and have reverted the check-in in
> staging.
>
> As I said, there was nothing sinister and my intentions were
> honourable.
No doubt about that. Here is an example based on the new documentation:
\new StaffGroup
<<
\new Staff { \grace {d8[ e]} \repeat unfold 20 f1~ }
\new Staff { \override Staff.StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3
{ d4 d d d } \repeat unfold 19 c'1~ }
>>
Does it work? No. Will the user have an idea how to fix this? No.
But
\new StaffGroup
<<
\new Staff { \grace {d8[ e]} \repeat unfold 20 f1~ }
\new Staff \with { \override StaffSymbol #'line-count = #3 } {
{ d4 d d d } \repeat unfold 19 c'1 }
>>
works just fine. I readily agree that we need to document the use of
context modifications better. But removing their use from the
documentation where they are the correct tool to use, in particular if
the end result does not even compile without change, is not a step in
the right direction.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
