coming from a 'not developer's' point of view.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1338 Documentation/notation/input.itely:1338: Hello, I'd rather put all this as an @KNOWNISSUE only because the document should say what does work now what doesn't (if you see what I mean). https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1403 Documentation/notation/input.itely:1403: footnote. A @samp{NoteHead} is the (only) grob directly caused Don't see the point of the parenthesis here for '(only)' - I don't think we need to pussy-foot here. https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1422 Documentation/notation/input.itely:1422: ees fis I know this wasn't a part of what you changed but Hmm... is this just semantics or are we including what is effectively a 'snippet' here by using \single (now that I understand single better - which is just a collection of overrides), if \single didn't exist today would we do this \footnote example by using \override and so break our 'kind-of-sort-of' rule for not using overrides in @lilypond examples. I.e move this whole example and the para you added as a snippet? https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
