Re: Doc: new syntax for \tweak, \override (2936) (issue 6852052)

[dak]

On 2012/11/23 23:51:13, Trevor Daniels wrote:

https://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
> File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):


https://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#newcode1918
> Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely:1918: (The syntax used
prior to
> Release 2.17.6 was
> On 2012/11/23 22:05:47, Graham Percival wrote:
> > I don't think we should be talking about deprecated syntax;
otherwise we could
> > end up with tons of side comments.  The documentation is large
enough as it
> is.
> > We should keep "used prior" material in Changes.

> I agree in general, but the point is both forms of the
> syntax are still valid and so should be documented.

I'm with Graham on this.  The extension manual may talk about the
equivalence of symbol lists in Scheme and LilyPond, but the whole point
of the exercise was to remove a complication.

> Furthermore it's only /likely/ to become deprecated;
> it hasn't yet been deprecated.  When it does this
> paragraph can go.  It also contrasts with \tweak -
> its syntax /has/ changed.

But the difference is not by design but by necessity (\tweak is not
implemented in the parser), and it is only a rather new form of \tweak
that has changed incompatibly.

https://codereview.appspot.com/6852052/