Issue 2916: Document \hide and \omit

Issue 2916: Document \hide and \omit

Also fixes a few other inaccuracies.

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-11-25 23:06:58]

LGTM

Trevor

[thomasmorley65, 2012-11-25 23:41:02]

On 2012/11/25 23:06:58, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> Trevor

+1

Harm

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-11-26 08:34:37]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6851102/diff/3001/Documentation/learning/tweaks...
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6851102/diff/3001/Documentation/learning/tweaks...
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:1499: \omit Staff.Clef
That's really confusing.  If a context is
specified in an \override in the same location
it generates no warning or error but becomes
ineffective.  Unless this can be changed
this needs much more explanation.

[dak, 2012-11-26 10:03:27]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6851102/diff/3001/Documentation/learning/tweaks...
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6851102/diff/3001/Documentation/learning/tweaks...
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:1499: \omit Staff.Clef
On 2012/11/26 08:34:37, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> That's really confusing.  If a context is
> specified in an \override in the same location
> it generates no warning or error but becomes
> ineffective.  Unless this can be changed
> this needs much more explanation. 

The underlying rationale was that music containing overrides is _filtered_ when
used in context modifications, and only those overrides applying to a context of
the proper type are actually being applied.

I think the idea was to be able to cram \time, \clef and other stuff into one
\global context modification and use that everywhere, sorting itself out
properly.

I agree that the effect that this has here is not really harmonizing well with
\override (which does not allow a context spec inside of context mods, and will
not silently ignore Bottom overrides in non-Bottom contexts), so it might make
sense to just drop this (not-really-yet-reached) design goal and the associated
"picky" context modifications which are not really documented on the user or
even the concept level.

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-11-26 21:53:09]

On 2012/11/26 10:03:27, dak wrote:

> I agree that the effect that this has here is not really harmonizing well with
> \override (which does not allow a context spec inside of context mods, and
will
> not silently ignore Bottom overrides in non-Bottom contexts), so it might make
> sense to just drop this (not-really-yet-reached) design goal and the
associated
> "picky" context modifications which are not really documented on the user or
> even the concept level.

I think you've chosen the best way forward here.  Thanks.
So LGTM.

Trevor

[dak, 2012-11-27 00:10:24]

On 2012/11/26 21:53:09, Trevor Daniels wrote:

> I think you've chosen the best way forward here.

Calling a strategic retreat "the best way forward" might be putting a bit of a
spin on it.  It would have been prohibitively costly for the ground forces to
secure the conquered areas.

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-11-27 11:09:10]

On 2012/11/27 00:10:24, dak wrote:
> On 2012/11/26 21:53:09, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> 
> > I think you've chosen the best way forward here.
> 
> Calling a strategic retreat "the best way forward" might
> be putting a bit of a spin on it.  

:)

> It would have been prohibitively costly for the ground 
> forces to secure the conquered areas.

Indeed.  Ensuring the flanks are adequately covered
before advancing is often forgotten in the excitement
of battle.

[Graham Percival, 2012-12-02 20:59:05]

LGTM