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.