Eyolf Østrem wrote:
On 14.11.2007 (16:18), Graham Percival wrote:
I have a slight preference against #2 (sentences everywhere), since IMO
I know you have, and you know this is the one I prefer. Giving a hint at
WHY one should seealso ain't fluff. This isn't dungeons and dragons ("you
are in a dark cave. To the east there is a link to Proportional notation,
to the south is a snippet." etc).
I think you mean "this isn't zork", not D&D. :)
in most cases it's obvious why somebody might want to look at other
section.
... I'd say that in SOME cases it's obvious, but in many it's not, and if a
general rule is needed, I'd go for 2 (with 3 as a variant).
Well, you're the one who'll have to go through and write sentences for
every single @seealso section, so it's no skin off my back... what about
the new Durations? (see tomorrow's GDP; should be online in about two
hours. If you're not certain if you're seeing the updated ones or not:
the updated one stick things in an itemized list)
At the very least, I want it clear which sentence refer to the Notation
Reference, and which sentences refer to the other parts of the docs.
... I _really_ think this is completely unnecessary, though. And if you
want to add full sentences to every single notation reference @ref{}, I
assume you want to do the same for every @lsr{dir,snippet}, every
@internalsref{}, etc ?
Mats, you're the yardstick for efficient NR use. What do you think of
the compact vs. full sentence form of @seealso ? I don't want to
approve any change that makes the NR harder to use for knowledgeable
users, and IMO this is one such change.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
