Le 19/08/2021 à 20:48, Knute Snortum a écrit :
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?
If you can do a merge request to fix it
directly, that's even better. Look up the
contributing instructions at
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/contributor/working-with-source-code
(if your change is small enough, you can rely
on the automated testing system to check the
Texinfo syntax; no need to compile the documentation
yourself then).
Thanks,
Jean
