Re: Doc: NR 4.4.1: Rewrite. (issue2642043)

[Ian Hulin]

On 29/10/10 05:12, address@hidden wrote:
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely
> 
> File Documentation/notation/spacing.itely (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely#newcode1509
> 
> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:1509: available.  Then, the
> staff-like contexts are distributed between
> This seems to say that staff-like contexts cannot influence the spacing
> of staffs.  Line 1711 about non-affinity-spacing, though, implies that
> staff-like contexts can influence the spacing to both their neighbors,
> pushing them apart if need be.  (I do not yet understand the behavior
> well enough to suggest better text.)
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely#newcode1513
> 
> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:1513: * Inter-system spacing
> properties::
> Within-system

You said: inter = between, intra = within  ==> Between-system,
or do you mean the original "Inter-system spacing" should have read
"Intra-system spacing"?

> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely#newcode1520
> 
> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:1520: @node Inter-system spacing
> properties
> Within-system
> 

See the comment above.

> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely#newcode1624
> 
> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:1624: size) will always reset all
> its default key-values.
> On 2010/10/27 08:44:41, Mark Polesky wrote:
>> Can anyone think of a good place for this?
> End of section 5.3.1 Overview of modifying properties
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely#newcode1662
> 
> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:1662:
> @code{after-last-staff-spacing}).
> On 2010/10/27 08:44:41, Mark Polesky wrote:
>> What's a better way to word it?
> "... leave this property unset, because if set it will be used instead
> of any StaffGrouper property that would have otherwise applied."
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/