Re: Doc: NR: 3.x Clarification for \keepWithTag and fix Typo in example (issue 279140043 by address@hidden)

[pkx166h]

On 2016/02/22 12:55:12, fede_inventati.org wrote:
> Il giorno dom 21 feb 2016 alle 11:44, mailto:address@hidden ha
scritto:
> > Thanks Federico - see inline for my replies.
> >
> >
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/279140043/diff/40001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
> > File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
> >
> >

https://codereview.appspot.com/279140043/diff/40001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode2313
> > Documentation/notation/input.itely:2313:
> > On 2016/02/18 22:51:46, fedelogy wrote:
> >> Sorry, I'm still confused. I cannot see any link between the
> > explanation above
> >> and the snippet below.
> >
> >> The snippet below explains \tagGroup, which is already explained
(and
> > much
> >> better) immediately after. And the four strings example is more
> > effective than
> >> A, B, C, D.
> >
> > OK I'll remove it.
> >
> > It wasn't clear in your request in the Tracker/email msg what
exactly
> > the point of the example you gave was. As I saw no @lilypond (just
an
> > @example) that used \tagGroup but we have @lilypond for all the
other
> > 'Tag' stuff (pushToTag, appendToTag, removeWithTag etc.) I assumed
> > that
> > a reader would benfit from an example of this command as well.

> Indeed my mind was confused when I reported and discussed the problem
> with David in the mailing list.
> I confused the two different paragraphs (one about how to use
> \keepWithTag, the other about \tagGroup).

> Anyway, if you want to add a @lilypond example of \tagGroup, you
should
> do it after it is explained and not before.
> The \tagGroup item in the general index points to this paragraph:

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/different-editions-from-one-source#index-_005ctagGroup

> So the @lilypond snippet - using violinI, violinII, viola, cello as
> example - should go after this sentence: "will then only be concerned
> with tags from violinI’s tag group: any element of the included music
> that is tagged with one or more of tags from this set but not with
> violinI will get removed."

> For example:

> @lilypond
> music = \relative {
>    \tagGroup #'(violinI violinII viola cello)
>    \tag #'violinI { c''4^"violinI" c c c }
>    \tag #'violinII { a2 a }
>    \tag #'viola { e8 e e2. }
>    \tag #'cello { d'2 d4 d }
>    R1^"untagged"
> }

> \new Voice {
>    % print only music tagged with violinI and any untagged music
>    \keepWithTag #'violinI
>    \music
> }
> @end lilypond

> >
> >> The above paragraph is just about how to use \keepWithTag (it's a
> > continuation
> >> of the previous paragraph about \removeWithTag).
> >
> > Yes but as I said above, without a corresponding @lilypond (just an
> > @example) that I could see. For someone who doesn't *already*
> > understand
> > Tags I thought this would be helpful.
> >
> >> It suggests using one command
> >> (a single tag or a list of tag), and avoiding multiple \keepWithTag
> > commands on
> >> a single music expression, otherwise everything will be removed.
> >
> > I don't understands this. My version just uses slightly different
> > words
> > as far as I can tell and removes a lot of unnecessary repetition and
> > adds the odd article and adverb.

> I read it again and you are right.. I don't know what I read few days
> ago.
> Please forget this comment :)




OK I have attempted to figure out what you meant. It may still need some
polishing. It was difficult to parse as it was (too many uses of the
word 'tag' frankly) so I have tried to make it less 'taggy'. I hope it
is still correct.

https://codereview.appspot.com/279140043/