Re: Issue 2178 in lilypond: NR: clarify the subsection "Automatic accidentals" of section 1.1.3

[lilypond]

Comment #3 on issue 2178 by address@hidden: NR: clarify the  
subsection "Automatic accidentals" of section 1.1.3
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2178

Thank you, James, for your interest in my problem (my eks-problem; I  
understand now what I had a problem understanding at first).

What confused me then: In a piano piece, in the right hand staff I used  
#(set-accidental-style 'default) at one point (this was in Lilypond  
2.14.1), and it worked, then I used  
#(set-accidental-style 'piano-cautionary) at a later point, and it had no  
effect. It turned out that this is because the the first command sets a  
property in the Staff context (scope), whereas the second sets the same  
property in the PianoStaff context, which is invisible because the property  
in the Staff context still rules. This is what I would like to make clear.

The full story is in the thread that you so helpfully linked to — thank you  
for doing that.

Some of my trouble in explaining this clearly comes from here: I find that  
the way properties work is not that clearly explained in section 3.3.4  
Modifying context properties of the LM nor in section 5.3 Modifying  
properties of NR. The words ‘scope’, ‘level’ and ‘context’ are used with  
rather overlapping meanings, and I haven't discovered a consistency in the  
word use. I used ‘scope’ in my text to refer to the same (as does the  
subsection in 1.1.3 that we’re discussing: “Optionally, the function can  
take a second argument that determines in which scope the style should be  
changed”).

An example might be a good idea. Maybe the tiny example from the original  
thread is fine. If I understand correctly the rule about not documenting  
the same thing in two places, the example should go into section 5.3, and  
of so, we still need the reference from 1.1.3. In some form or another.

I understand that my suggestion in its first form wouldn't be as helpful as  
I intended. I hope we can reach a helpful solution, for I still believe the  
confusion is real.

I'm unsure whether I should submit this reply on code.google.com or reply  
to the email message I got. If I've done it the wrong way, please let me  
know what the right way is.

Ole