Docs: clean up after \relative conversion

Docs: clean up after \relative conversion

[Trevor Daniels, 2015-05-25 21:22:38]

Apart from a really trivial nitpick, LGTM
(but I haven't checked if anything has been missed)

Trevor

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/pitche...
File Documentation/notation/pitches.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/pitche...
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:303: @code{@w{\relative}} is interpreted
just the same as
Don't need @w now

[dak, 2015-05-26 16:21:48]

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:1184: \partial 4
Ok, looks like \partial has not been caught by my patterns.  I can try changing
the patterns, reverting, rebasing, etc.  It will not be just the learning
manual.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:1348: tripletA = \relative {
\tuplet 3/2 { c'8 e g } }
Oh wow.  That was one ugly puppy of an example.  Looks like the first note was
tweaked until the net effect was "octave-neutral" and then the octave for
\relative was changed accordingly.  Actually a good example of just _why_
\relative should be applied per variable rather than just once.

Tracing the source through various manual reorganizations appears to implicate

commit 498805dc8fdddb5b321a0dcf404a068b58cdae74
Author: Graham Percival <graham@percival-music.ca>
Date:   Sat Nov 24 17:20:33 2007 -0800

    Small update to tutorial.

Good eye.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:1514: will not be part of the
relative music:
not be part -> not affect the octaves

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:1518: c'4 \fixed c { f'' g'' } c |
Oh.  No idea why this wasn't converted automatically.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
File Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:762: \relative @{ noteA << < noteB
noteC > \\ noteD >> noteE @}
Well, those examples don't have a detectable "first pitch" for the script, so
yeah: needs fixing up.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:847: {  % Voice one
Probably the comment which the script does not catch.  Hard to do in general I
think.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:1013: \voiceOne
Here the \voiceXxx commands.  I think I can add them to the script but it's sort
of diminuishing returns.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:1207: \autoBeamOff
Huh.  So many "harmless" commands to take care off.  Probably also just a single
command.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:1313: TenorMusic = \relative {  e4 |
g4. g8 c4.   b8 | a8 b c d e4 }
These were \relative c  { formatted to line up with \relative c' {.  It was
probably less ugly in the script to keep the extra space.  Makes more things
line up.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:1729: \set Staff.instrumentName =
#"Soprano"
Ok, that's the kind of complexity I don't want to parse automatically.

The script had about 90% coverage or so and working over Learning manually to
make it consistent makes sense.  I think we can live with incomplete coverage
elsewhere.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/tw...
File Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/tw...
Documentation/learning/tweaks.itely:4190: a'4.\mpdolce d8 cis4--\glissando a |
Actually, I find all those

\relative c'' { a ... ->  \relative { a' ...

conversions an improvement.  But then I'm probably not the most avid \relative
user anyway.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/pi...
File Documentation/notation/pitches.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/pi...
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:303: @code{\relative} is interpreted just
the same as
This change does not make sense, actually.  \relative f needs to stay here or
the sentence becomes pointless.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/si...
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/si...
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:188: \relative {
Well, this is sort of a different issue/change now.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/si...
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:219: @c Without \new Voice, implicit
voice creation does the dumbest thing.
Actually, I think that this comment is no longer accurate, so maybe the \new
Voice is now expendible.

[Keith, 2015-05-28 05:13:48]

On 2015/05/26 16:21:48, dak wrote:
>
> The script had about 90% coverage or so and working over Learning manually to
> make it consistent makes sense.  I think we can live with incomplete coverage
> elsewhere.

I completed (I'm pretty sure) the conversion in the Learning Manual, because at
that point we have only described one form of \relative{}.   The only changes in
this patch outside of Learning Manual are places where we talk about \relative.

>
https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/pi...
> Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:303: @code{\relative} is interpreted just
> the same as
> This change does not make sense, actually.  \relative f needs to stay here or
> the sentence becomes pointless.

We have that point up on line 188 now, so I was thinking about deleting the
line.

>
https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/si...
> Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:188: \relative {
> Well, this is sort of a different issue/change now.

This came from the change to next two analogous examples.  Implicit \relative
c'' {} mixed with \relative{} used to explain a tricky interaction with
expanding chords was too much for my brain to keep track of.

[dak, 2015-05-28 10:13:50]

On 2015/05/28 05:13:48, Keith wrote:
> On 2015/05/26 16:21:48, dak wrote:
> >
> > The script had about 90% coverage or so and working over Learning manually
to
> > make it consistent makes sense.  I think we can live with incomplete
coverage
> > elsewhere.
> 
> I completed (I'm pretty sure) the conversion in the Learning Manual, because
at
> that point we have only described one form of \relative{}.   The only changes
in
> this patch outside of Learning Manual are places where we talk about
\relative.
> 
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/pi...
> > Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:303: @code{\relative} is interpreted
just
> > the same as
> > This change does not make sense, actually.  \relative f needs to stay here
or
> > the sentence becomes pointless.
> 
> We have that point up on line 188 now, so I was thinking about deleting the
> line.

Probably better than twisting it around.

>
https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/si...
> > Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:188: \relative {
> > Well, this is sort of a different issue/change now.
> 
> This came from the change to next two analogous examples.  Implicit \relative
> c'' {} mixed with \relative{} used to explain a tricky interaction with
> expanding chords was too much for my brain to keep track of.

Just thought I'd mention it.

I'll fetch your patch in the current state and will take a look how well-behaved
a merge/rebase with my proposed amendment to the automatic conversion would turn
out.  If Git does not cause significant trouble, I'd lean towards pushing my
automated amendment first.  That makes your manual amendment smaller and thus
will at least cause less work for translators (and less potential for
translation errors etc).

[dak, 2015-05-29 08:35:06]

Will presently upload a diff incorporating the work of Keith after applying the
points made in review.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:1184: \partial 4
On 2015/05/26 16:21:47, dak wrote:
> Ok, looks like \partial has not been caught by my patterns.  I can try
changing
> the patterns, reverting, rebasing, etc.  It will not be just the learning
> manual.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/co...
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:1514: will not be part of the
relative music:
On 2015/05/26 16:21:47, dak wrote:
> not be part -> not affect the octaves

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
File Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:1013: \voiceOne
On 2015/05/26 16:21:47, dak wrote:
> Here the \voiceXxx commands.  I think I can add them to the script but it's
sort
> of diminuishing returns.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:1207: \autoBeamOff
On 2015/05/26 16:21:47, dak wrote:
> Huh.  So many "harmless" commands to take care off.  Probably also just a
single
> command.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/learning/fu...
Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:1729: \set Staff.instrumentName =
#"Soprano"
On 2015/05/26 16:21:47, dak wrote:
> Ok, that's the kind of complexity I don't want to parse automatically.

Well, so I did parse it automatically.  I remembered that I had a pattern called
"matcharg" in python/convertrules.py that worked for the right side of the
assignment.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/pi...
File Documentation/notation/pitches.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/pi...
Documentation/notation/pitches.itely:303: @code{\relative} is interpreted just
the same as
On 2015/05/26 16:21:47, dak wrote:
> This change does not make sense, actually.  \relative f needs to stay here or
> the sentence becomes pointless.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/si...
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/239250043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/si...
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:219: @c Without \new Voice, implicit
voice creation does the dumbest thing.
On 2015/05/26 16:21:47, dak wrote:
> Actually, I think that this comment is no longer accurate, so maybe the \new
> Voice is now expendible.

Done.