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

[ColinPKCampbell]

revised patch uploaded.


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.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> 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

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> Again do we @emph{} unisono? I assume this is a musical term and not
just a
> mis-translation of foreign usage?

I believe "unisono" is a Dutch usage, so I've changed it to "unison",
although it is hardwired into the names of functions like
\partCombineUnisono.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode856
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:856: Combine the notes to a
chord.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> 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.

I think it's safe, given the names of the commands.  Whether the
commands are correctly named may be another discussion!

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode860
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:860: The two voices are
unisono.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> @emph{unisono}

As above.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination
strategy automatically determined.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> 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'.


Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode874
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:874: @end itemize
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> 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.


Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode880
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:880: \partcombineChords
e'^"chord" e |
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> If we do change the word 'chord' above then we need to change it here
too.

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode891
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:891: c2 c
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> If we're going to have bar checks then we need one on the last bar

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode897
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:897: \new Staff \partcombine
\instrumentOne \instrumentTwo
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> 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 }
> >>

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode899
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:899: @end lilypond
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
> 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.

It may be more confusing to write it without variables; \partcombine is
certainly easier to do *with* than without, and I believe the example is
nearly unreadable without variables.  Other tastes are of course
different!

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