while the newer edition seems cold and mechanical.
It is kind of hard to immediately see what makes the difference with the
-newer edition. Everything looks neat and tiny, possibly even ``better''
+newer edition. Everything looks neat and tiny, possibly even @qq{better}
because it looks more computerized and uniform. This really puzzled us
for quite a while. We wanted to improve computer notation, but we first
had to figure out what was wrong with it.
choose the least ugly configuration.
For example, here are three possible slur configurations, and LilyPond
-has given each one a score in `ugly points'. The first example gets 15.39
+has given each one a score in @q{ugly points}. The first example gets 15.39
points for grazing one of the notes:
@lilypond
In this situation, the accidentals and staff are shared, but the
stems, slurs, beams, etc., are private to each voice. Hence,
engravers should be grouped. The engravers for note heads, stems,
-slurs, etc., go into a group called @q{Voice context,} while the
+slurs, etc., go into a group called @q{Voice context}, while the
engravers for key, accidental, bar, etc., go into a group called
-@q{Staff context.} In the case of polyphony, a single Staff
+@q{Staff context}. In the case of polyphony, a single Staff
context contains more than one Voice context. Similarly, multiple
Staff contexts can be put into a single Score context. The Score
context is the top level notation context.