lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change

 From: Reinhold Kainhofer Subject: Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:08:19 +0200 User-agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.31-21-generic; KDE/4.4.2; i686; ; )

```Am Dienstag, 20. April 2010 18:47:27 schrieben Sie:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 06:31:11PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > I'm beginning to think about the \cresc, \dim
> > and \decresc text commands again. Shall we really wait that long?
>
> Good point.  What was your opinion on \newcresc again?

I don't like it.

> I remember
> somebody suggesting it, and I think I remember somebody pointing
> out some problems with that approach...

Yes, I pointed out the problems:
-) I don't like the idea to introduce a temporary command, which will need to
be changed in the next major version, again.

-) "newcresc" is misleading, it would only introduce a new command name, but
fix \cresc to something it should have always been, anyway

-) \cresc, \dim, etc. are not even documented, so I don't see any reason to
make so much fuss about these commands. In particular, the documentation only
introduces \<,\>,\cr,\decr (which are all equivalent forms for hairpins in
postfix notation). For text crescendi, the \crescTextCresc prefix setter
commands are documented. But the prefix \cresc, \dim, \decresc commands are
never even mentioned (I checked the 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 documentation).
Only the ly/spanner-init.ly file contains their definitions together with the
comment
% STOP: junkme!

> but if we could add the
> new functionality without changing the old commands, that would be
> ideal.

I don't really see the point in keeping old, broken commands, which are not
even mentioned, much less described in their shortcomings in the docs.

Cheers,
Reinhold

--
------------------------------------------------------------------