Re: [PATCH] programming-interface.itely: add backquote to Scheme example with comma.

[Joe Neeman]

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 20:28 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Joe Neeman <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 22:25 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> ---
> >>  .../extending/programming-interface.itely          |    2 +-
> >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely 
> >> b/Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely
> >> index 4bae49a..3806d35 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely
> >> +++ b/Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely
> >> @@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ can be inserted with a grob closure.  Here is a 
> >> setting from
> >>  @code{AccidentalSuggestion},
> >>  
> >>  @example
> >> -(X-offset .
> >> +`(X-offset .
> >>    ,(ly:make-simple-closure
> >>      `(,+
> >>          ,(ly:make-simple-closure
> >
> > This code is lifted from scm/define-grobs.scm, where it appears without
> > the backtick.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The backtick is just at some outer layer in the
> definition.  Not printing it makes as little sense as not printing an
> initial quote character when quoting stuff with string escapes: the
> example makes no syntactical sense without this added context.
> 
> > Perhaps the real problem is that it is presented out of context. That
> > is, maybe we should have
> >
> > \override AccidentalSuggestion #'X-offset = (ly:make-simple-closure ...)
> >
> > instead.
> 
> The whole context that is needed is "`" as far as I am concerned.

Ok, pushed.