Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax

[Carl Sorensen]

On 7/15/18, 3:29 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" 
<address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden> wrote:

    Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
    
    > Hello everybody,
    >
    > I just noticed that it’s possible to use the LilyPond symbol list/key
    > list syntax when setting melismaBusyProperties. However, the doc
    > string reads
    >
    > "A list of properties (symbols) to determine whether a melisma is playing.
    > Setting this property will influence how lyrics are aligned to notes.
    > For example, if set to @code{'(melismaBusy beamMelismaBusy)},
    > only manual melismata and manual beams are considered.
    > Possible values include @code{melismaBusy}, @code{slurMelismaBusy},
    > @code{tieMelismaBusy}, and @code{beamMelismaBusy}."
    >
    > Would we want to change the first code example to
    >
    > @code{melismaBusy,beamMelismaBusy}
    >
    > or otherwise suggest the new syntax?
    
    Feel free to do so, I think.  It's not really a change of syntax
    specifically for melismaBusyProperties so I'd likely not mess with the
    descriptions when they talk about "symbol list" or whatever.  Instead
    I'd just change the examples.

I don't think we should change the doc string.  IIUC, the property actually is 
a list. But we can set it using LilyPond syntax, as well as Scheme syntax.  So 
I agree that it should shown in the examples, but the docstring should not be 
changed.

Thanks,

Carl