Re: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.

[Trevor Daniels]

James Lowe wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:19 AM
> Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
> > > Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > > > Carl Sorensen wrote:
> > > > > I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
> > > > > is more than one bar long.  That's a good habit to get
> > > > > into; we ought to start it right from the first.
> > > >
> > > > I would agree with this.  In fact I put bar checks into
> > > > quite a few of the examples in the LM originally, but they
> > > > seem to have been removed.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the reason for removing the bar checks was that
> > > they're not explained at all in the LM.  Do you think we
> > > should mention bar checks (briefly) near the beginning of
> > > the LM, without going into detail?  Then we'd be justified
> > > using them in the examples.
> >
> > A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on input
> > files would be good.  I think bar checks are at least as
> > important as a \version statement, which is mentioned there.
>
> If any one wants to make suggestions I'll be more than happy to 
> implement them.

OK.  How about something like the following, to be added in
LM 1.2.2 as the final item in the list (I'll leave you to add
the formatting):

[index entries]

o Bar checks

Some examples in the manuals contain the bar check symbol, |.
These cause LilyPond to check that the end of a measure has been
reached at that point, and to issue a warning if not.  It is
recommended that bar check symbols be routinely inserted when 
entering music to provide measures with visual delimiters 
and to ensure that all durations have been entered correctly.
For more information see NR Bar and bar number checks.

Trevor