Re: removing @lsr{} and only using @lsrdir{}

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:50 +0200
John Mandereau <address@hidden> wrote:

> Graham Percival wrote:
> > We could then rename @lsrdir{} to @rlsr{} and use the same format
> > as all the other @rfoo{} macros.  That would simply the doc
> > source.
> > 
> > Unless I hear voiciferous complaints before Monday, I'll remove
> > @lsr{}.
> 
> Very good.  We'll be able to replace @lsr with @rlsr as soon as we use
> texi2html to build the docs and I've modified makelsr.py or
> lilypond-book so it uses doctitle header field as @section for each
> snippet -- then we'd build the splitted HTML snippets document with
> --split=chapter.

No, no -- I'm saying that I don't think it's worth linking to a
specific snippet.  As long as people are directed to the Foo
snippet list, that's all we need.  The extra complication isn't
worth it.

Counter-arguments welcome for the next three or four days.  :)

> BTW would you like doctitle of snippets appear in Selected snippets in
> the manuals?

Sure.  I'd also like the doctitle instead of filename in the Foo
Snippets lists.

>  This would make Selected Snippets clearer.  If you think
> this is a good idea, this would be a lp-book fragment option like
> [doctitle=CMD] where CMD is a Texinfo formatting or sectioning command
> -- I'm thinking about using @emph for snippet names in Selected
> snippets.

Sorry, why do we need a CMD?  We should use the same formatting
for all of them, so an argument-less command like [doctitle]
should be sufficient.

I have no particular feelings about what that formatting should
be, other than "less visible than whatever is produced by
@snippets".  :)   ... and recall that "whatever is produced by
@snippets" is still an uncertain quantity.


BTW, I'm updating the snippets right now (including all our
hacks), so don't worry about doing it yourself.

Cheers,
- Graham