Include and document the Articulate script by Peter Chubb.

Include and document the Articulate script by Peter Chubb.

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-03-20 17:30:46]

Looks generally good to me.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.ite...
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1690: more realistic MIDI output is available
by means of the Articulate
could "the Articulate script" be a @ref{} ?

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.ite...
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2307: @unnumberedsubsubsec Using the
Articulate script
IMO, the @unnumberedsubsubsec doesn't add anything.  I suggest omitting this
line entirely.

If you really really want that line there for some reason, then please add a
@node right above it, to match the doc policy.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.ite...
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2316: and in the @code{\score} section do
I do not believe that you "have to" include the \unfoldRepeats section.  Could
you just change this to:

To create a MIDI file with all repeats played, add this to your \score:

[pacovila, 2011-03-31 17:02:59]

New patch coming soon after license update.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.ite...
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1690: more realistic MIDI output is available
by means of the Articulate
On 2011/03/20 17:30:46, Graham Percival wrote:
> could "the Articulate script" be a @ref{} ?

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.ite...
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2307: @unnumberedsubsubsec Using the
Articulate script
On 2011/03/20 17:30:46, Graham Percival wrote:
> IMO, the @unnumberedsubsubsec doesn't add anything.  I suggest omitting this
> line entirely.
> 
> If you really really want that line there for some reason, then please add a
> @node right above it, to match the doc policy.

I agree it is unnecessary.  I added no @nodes because previous sections
@unnumberedsubsubsec Unsupported in MIDI etc don't have a @node.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.ite...
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2316: and in the @code{\score} section do
On 2011/03/20 17:30:46, Graham Percival wrote:
> I do not believe that you "have to" include the \unfoldRepeats section.  Could
> you just change this to:
> 
> To create a MIDI file with all repeats played, add this to your \score:

Here, I just copied the lines provided by Peter.  \articulate is needed AFAIK,
\unfoldRepeats not essential but still could be for trills.

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-04-05 02:41:19]

Looks basically good.  Could you add this between the first and second points in
LICENSE ?


  * It does not apply to ly/articulate.ly, which is only licensed
    under the GPL version 3 (not any later versions).

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input....
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input....
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1956: except those enabled by @ref{The
Articulate script} when it is used:
replace with

unless you use @ref{The Articulate script}:

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input....
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2300: @subsection The Articulate script
I don't particularly like this doc section, but that's not important.  It's good
enough, so let's play with doc-writing after the code is added.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/ly/articulate.ly
File ly/articulate.ly (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/ly/articulate.ly#newcode1
ly/articulate.ly:1: %
Could we add a
%   WARNING: this file under GPLv3 only, not GPLv3+

to the top of this file?  I don't want to confuse anybody who only wants to edit
GPLv3+ files.  Some people care about this, so let's be clear for them.

[pacovila, 2011-04-06 11:37:29]

Uploading third patch.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input....
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input....
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1956: except those enabled by @ref{The
Articulate script} when it is used:
On 2011/04/05 02:41:19, Graham Percival wrote:
> replace with
> 
> unless you use @ref{The Articulate script}:

But that's not completely true.  Not all the following items are enabled by
Articulate.  Done anyway

[pacovila, 2011-04-06 11:40:54]

2011/4/6  <paconet.org@gmail.com>:
> Uploading third patch.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/

If it is done, could you push it by yourself before 2.14?  I never
know how long exactly to wait before pushing.
-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

[pacovila, 2011-04-06 12:04:43]

2011/4/6 Francisco Vila <paconet.org@gmail.com>:
> 2011/4/6  <paconet.org@gmail.com>:
>> Uploading third patch.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/
>
> If it is done, could you push it by yourself before 2.14?  I never
> know how long exactly to wait before pushing.

In addition, should I update Changes?

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-04-06 23:57:43]

Sorry about the confusion on documentation -- I misread the initial version. 
Yes, even though the current version is incorrect, let's just go with it anyway.

(really, adding new features and writing documentation about them are completely
different things; there's no point holding back a new feature because we're
fumbling around with the docs!  I wish that the initial patch hadn't included
any documentation; articulate.ly would have been pushed by now)

Yes, adding a bullet point in changes.tely about this would be nice.


Finally, I'm sorry, but I don't believe in trying to rush to get stuff added
before 2.14.0.  2.14.1 will come out a few days later, so there is absolutely no
reason to worry about .0.

[pacovila, 2011-04-08 11:25:32]

2011/4/7  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com>:
> Sorry about the confusion on documentation -- I misread the initial
> version.  Yes, even though the current version is incorrect, let's just
> go with it anyway.
>
> (really, adding new features and writing documentation about them are
> completely different things; there's no point holding back a new feature
> because we're fumbling around with the docs!  I wish that the initial
> patch hadn't included any documentation; articulate.ly would have been
> pushed by now)
>
> Yes, adding a bullet point in changes.tely about this would be nice.
>
>
> Finally, I'm sorry, but I don't believe in trying to rush to get stuff
> added before 2.14.0.  2.14.1 will come out a few days later, so there is
> absolutely no reason to worry about .0.
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/

Now pushed.  Not for rushing; just it is the time, I think.

Closing rietveld issue. Thanks to all; now feel free to improve my
humble addition.

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com