Re: Docs: clean up after \relative conversion (issue 239250043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2015/05/28 05:13:48, Keith wrote:
> On 2015/05/26 16:21:48, dak wrote:
> >
> > The script had about 90% coverage or so and working over Learning
manually to
> > make it consistent makes sense.  I think we can live with incomplete
coverage
> > elsewhere.

> I completed (I'm pretty sure) the conversion in the Learning Manual,
because at
> that point we have only described one form of \relative{}.   The only
changes in
> this patch outside of Learning Manual are places where we talk about
\relative.

> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/pitches.itely#newcode303
> > Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:303: @code{\relative} is
interpreted just
> > the same as
> > This change does not make sense, actually.  \relative f needs to
stay here or
> > the sentence becomes pointless.

> We have that point up on line 188 now, so I was thinking about
deleting the
> line.

Probably better than twisting it around.


https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode188
> > Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:188: \relative {
> > Well, this is sort of a different issue/change now.

> This came from the change to next two analogous examples.  Implicit
\relative
> c'' {} mixed with \relative{} used to explain a tricky interaction
with
> expanding chords was too much for my brain to keep track of.

Just thought I'd mention it.

I'll fetch your patch in the current state and will take a look how
well-behaved a merge/rebase with my proposed amendment to the automatic
conversion would turn out.  If Git does not cause significant trouble,
I'd lean towards pushing my automated amendment first.  That makes your
manual amendment smaller and thus will at least cause less work for
translators (and less potential for translation errors etc).

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/