Graham Percival wrote:
> Currently we have a few different ways of introducing examples in the
> docs. Should we standardize on a particular way, or just let doc
> writers do whatever they want?
>
> Currently we have a combination of four different ways.
>
> 1) The text just continues directly into
>
> c'4\mf
>
> 2) The text suggests that one may do foo,
>
> c'4^"foo"
>
> 3) The text directs the reader to the following example:
>
> << c'4 { e g } >>
>
> 4) The text forms a complete sentence.
>
> c'4^-\mark \default
>
>
> Should allow all? Specify one method? Disallow one or two methods?
I prefer 4, 3, 2, 1 (in that order). But I don't think standardisation
is necessary, although perhaps an official preference could be specified.
--
Mark Knoop
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
