Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)

[pkx166h]

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode846
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:846: change the state
permanently.
If I may make a suggestion for this whole paragraph?

--snip--

In professional scores, voices are often kept apart for long periods -
even if one or two notes actually coincide and could easily be printed
as @emph{unisono}.  Combining notes into a chord, or to print one voice
as solo is therefore not ideal as the @code{\partcombine} function
considers each note separately.

For this reason, the @code{\partcombine} function can be overriden with
the following commands:

--snip--

I have moved that final sentence below the list

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono.
Again do we @emph{} unisono? I assume this is a musical term and not
just a mis-translation of foreign usage?

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode856
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:856: Combine the notes to a
chord.
There was much discussion on 'chord' vs 'not chord' unrelated to this,
but still enough to worry some. So is 'chord' the correct term here? I
have no preference but am just pre-empting discussion.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode860
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:860: The two voices are
unisono.
@emph{unisono}

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination
strategy automatically determined.
Can we be more descriptive on what the 'automatic' strategy is? Or we
could simply say

"Let the software decide which is the best option". I want to not use
the word 'strategy'.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode874
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:874: @end itemize
Now add the final sentence from above:

All commands ending in @code{...Once} apply only to the following note.

---

It is therefore implicit and unnecessary to state what the code that
doesn't end in 'once' does. So I have removed that sentence.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode880
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:880: \partcombineChords
e'^"chord" e |
If we do change the word 'chord' above then we need to change it here
too.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode891
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:891: c2 c
If we're going to have bar checks then we need one on the last bar

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode897
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:897: \new Staff \partcombine
\instrumentOne \instrumentTwo
If we do keep this @lilypond (see comment below) I'd like to see {}
after the new Staff for clarity.

<<
  \new Staff { \instrumentOne }
  \new Staff { \instrumentTwo }
  \new Staff { \partcombine \instrumentOne \instrumentTwo }


http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode899
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:899: @end lilypond
Maybe I have missed something but this looks a tad complicated for an
@lilypond and would be better served as a snippet instead. We don't
often use variables like this in @lilypond except when explicitly
discussing variables.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/