|
From: | Trevor Daniels |
Subject: | Re: Renaming \setTextCresc, \setHairpinCresc, etc. |
Date: | Fri, 30 May 2008 20:27:53 +0100 |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick McCarty" <address@hidden>
To: "Valentin Villenave" <address@hidden> Cc: <address@hidden> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 7:47 PM Subject: Re: Renaming \setTextCresc, \setHairpinCresc, etc.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> wrote:2008/4/30 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:43:59 -0700 Patrick McCarty <address@hidden> wrote:I would like to propose that we rename the textual crescendo and decrescendo commands to names that are more intuitive and are more internally consistent. The current implementation uses the "hairpin" commands to revert the "text" commands, but I do not think this solution is very intuitive. Here is the list of the commands in question: \setTextCresc \setTextDecresc \setTextDecr \setTextDim \setHairpinCresc \setHairpinDecresc \setHairpinDim\set**** must die. It's massively confusing for newbies (and in more than one case, doc writers). I thought we'd fixed all of these, but upon investigation it seems that we only did ly/property-init.ly and not ly/spanners-init.lySince hairpins are the default output -- using \< and \> -- shouldn't the revert commands indicate that the "textual" (de)crescendo marks are being turned off? Maybe we should keep the \set... commands that set the alternative behavior (textual crescendos, etc.) and use \unset... commands as their opposites. Or we could rename them using the on/off method: \textCrescOn, \textCrescOff, etc.I prefer on/off. However, I'm not certain whether we want to go with \textCrescOn or \hairpinCrescOn (with Off being the opposite, of course) We could even go with pairs of: \crescText \crescHairpin ... actually, I think the last idea is by far the best. Any objections?Since the Issue 143 has been fixed, we are now ready to rename this command to... whatever you guys will decide.I still think we should go with the On, Off commands. I think the Hairpin commands that relate to "decrescendos" (currently, \setHairpinDecresc and \setHairpinDim) are redundant because they perform the same function. That is, they revert to a mode that produces the _same_ type of hairpin: the hairpin produced with \>. IMO, if we go with the On and Off commands, it is clear that the _text_ dynamic commands (set with ***On) are being reverted with ***Off. And it clears up the redundancy issue I mentioned above: there are only two types of hairpins, but there are currently 4 Hairpin commands dedicated to reverting to hairpin mode. Here are the On and Off command pairs that I like: \crescTextOn, \crescTextOff \decrescTextOn, \decrescTextOff \dimTextOn, \dimTextOff \decrTextOn, \decrTextOff
I think is this too complicated. For crescendos there are just two possibilities - cresc. or hairpins - and for decrescendos there are four - decresc., decr., dim or hairpin. That is, six altogether, so why do we need eight commands? Based on Graham's proposal I would suggest the following as logical and clear: \crescAsCresc \crescAsHairpinand
\dimAsDecresc \dimAsDecr \dimAsDim \dimAsHairpinIf there is an objection to "Hairpin" perhaps "Graphic" would
do? Trevor
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |