On 4 December 2011 07:57, David Kastrup
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Overall lesson: it seems that we should have reviews for more doc
> items than we did previously, since neither James nor I are
> qualified to deal with advanced lilypond concepts.
It is somewhat audacious to assume that a whole _feature_ exists for no
good reason. And adding new information can always be improved later.
But throwing away or modifying old information when one does not even
understand what it was doing is a good reason to ask.
Just hang on a second.
When one 'throws away' information that 'one' has already used in his own music and has already compiled a full doc _without_ issue of
example then one 'assumes' that the modification is fine.
One was not 'not understanding' here, one (more than 'one' actually) was thinking that the change made no difference at all and was purely one
of style. There are a many ways to solve many different problems within LilyPond and not everyone knows every single nuance.
So while I am always happy (grateful even) to be corrected and have the reason explained, I am slightly 'not happy' about the implication of your last paragraph that this was done 'without understanding'.
Seems to me, as it does yourself David, that documentation elsewhere (for contexts) could be improved, and there was even a request to change something about instrument names in this thread from Xavier - because people are 'always' making a similar mistake - and yet I see no one stepping forward to help improve the documentation until something like this happens and people get 'up in arms'.
As has always been stated, no is asking for documentation tracker entries to be 'verbatim and polished or even complete' when they are created, but it sure would help if 'something' was added - even if it is just a link to a section or a para about what is bad/good/needs improving. It's not like I am (now) busy doing anything else for the LP project.
--