Re: Document <> and improve other simultanous music documentation. (issue 6248080)

[dak]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode94
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:94: \repeat unfold 4 { c4 e }
c1\f
On 2012/06/02 19:29:26, Keith wrote:
> That example gives me a headache.

Compared to yours?  Your proposal was a compressed bunch of symbol
shortcuts, the kind that is controversal.  You now introduce a
complication "if the crescendo should end on the last note" that nobody
has asked for and give an example using simultaneous music which is
going to be introduced later in the notation manual.

Then you come back with "s1*0 will work just fine:".  I don't know how
often I have to repeat myself: this patch is not supposed to replace
s1*0 with <>.  It is supposed to introduce and explain <> at a basic
level and put it into context with << >> which also has been explained
insufficiently so far.

If you are unable to focus on anything but s1*0, I'll need to create a
separate issue for discussing this patch, even though getting a sane
explanation for <> and <<>> is part of paving the ground for tackling
2522, by making it possible to exchange a suggestion of one reasonably
documented behavior with a different reasonably documented behavior.

Because whatever choice we make, it should not be based on wanting to
hide the undocumented truth.

The truth is that there are cases where s1*0 works just as well as <>,
and others where it doesn't.  I will not construct more contrived
examples just to be able to make a better case for <> instead of s1*0.
That's a separate issue.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/