Re: GDP: introducing examples

[Mark Knoop]

Graham Percival wrote:
> Currently we have a few different ways of introducing examples in the
> docs.  Should we standardize on a particular way, or just let doc
> writers do whatever they want?
> 
> Currently we have a combination of four different ways.
> 
> 1)  The text just continues directly into
> 
>     c'4\mf
> 
> 2)  The text suggests that one may do foo,
> 
>     c'4^"foo"
> 
> 3)  The text directs the reader to the following example:
> 
>     << c'4 { e g } >>
> 
> 4)  The text forms a complete sentence.
> 
>     c'4^-\mark \default
> 
> 
> Should allow all?  Specify one method?  Disallow one or two methods?

I prefer 4, 3, 2, 1 (in that order). But I don't think standardisation
is necessary, although perhaps an official preference could be specified.

-- 
Mark Knoop
address@hidden