On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:25 AM David Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed 18 Aug 2021 at 18:18:04 (+0200), Jean Abou Samra wrote: > > Le 18/08/2021 à 17:23, Knute Snortum a écrit : > > > That clarifies things, thanks. > > > > > > What would you think about changing the documentation to say something > > > like, "If this accidental style is applied to a Staff, it will apply > > > to all staves within the enclosing PianoStaff or GrandStaff"? > > > > It would be nice to reword this passage. "If this > > accidental style is applied to a Staff" does not > > exactly reflect what is happening, though: the > > accidental style never goes through the Staff, but > > jumps to the GrandStaff directly. In other words, > > > > \accidentalStyle piano > > > > is equivalent to > > > > \accidentalStyle GrandStaff.piano > > > > whereas > > > > \accidentalStyle default > > > > is the same as > > > > \accidentalStyle Staff.default > > > > How to phrase this in a way that would make it > > clear to you? > > When I looked at the paragraph in question: > > "This accidental style applies to the current GrandStaff or PianoStaff by > default" > > I wasn't immediately clear about what "default" implied, > particularly as "default" is also the defined name of one of the > types of automatic accidental style being discussed in this section. > (There are references to the name "default" scattered throughout > the section.) > > So I would suggest that the wording be made more explicit: > > "This accidental style applies to the current GrandStaff or PianoStaff > unless qualified in scope with a second argument." > > Ditto for: > > "This accidental style applies to the current ChoirStaff > unless qualified in scope with a second argument." > > I would also suggest changing the paragraph near the start of the > section to eliminate "default" there as well: > > "The accidental style normally applies to the current Staff > (with the exception of the styles > > choral, ← this addition was overlooked > > piano and piano-cautionary, which are explained below). > Optionally, the function can take a second argument that > determines in which scope the style should be changed. > For example, …" > > Cheers, > David.
Thanks David. Is it okay if I turn your suggestion into a LIlyPond Issue? Or would you rather do that? -- Knute Snortum
