David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I think that conveys more clearly what is happening.
>
> Not really: that remains something to look up in the documentation.
>
> Now I'll readily admit that \consists / \remove does not make for an
> appealing antonym pair. I'd be leary after all this time of turning a
> common word like "add" into a reserved word even though "remove" is not
> better in that regard. But at least it has the advantage of being
> established.
Some of my argument may be based on some tendency of arguing anything
out of contrariness. However, this latter point has been irking me
quite a bit as opposed to the quirky grammar you complain over.
It's not really a matter of quirky grammar.
It's that the term does not convey the relationship in question.
While
it would likely do nothing to address your complaint, actually moving to
\consists / \unconsists would, while doubling down on the unnaturality
you complain about, make for a better pairing, create a new keyword very
unlikely to be in previous use and free \remove.
So here's a question.
Is \consist only used to express the relationship between contexts and engravers?
If not, what are the other entities that are related by way of \consist?
Because if it's just used to with respect to engravers, you could consider \addEngraver and \removeEngraver.
Sorry, this is not going at all in the direction you were aiming for but
from a purely technical standpoint getting rid of \remove would be a
much more worthwhile target than junking \consists , and \unconsists or
something of similar awkwardness would be a lot less problematic as a
newcomer than something as generic as \add .
Quite the contrary. This is helping to elucidate what's actually going on, and I suspect a more descriptive terminology may result.
Based on Urs' comment, if it is more like registering a callback, how about \register and \unregister?
Thanks,