Re: \consists terminology

[Aaron Hill]

On 2018-06-15 09:03, David Kastrup wrote:
> "consists of" and "will include the following as one of many
> constituents upon instantiation to be part of its translator group" is
> not the same.

I asked you to defend the hyperbolic "factually utterly wrong".  At most 
the distinctions are that of tense and a clarity of the underlying 
mechanism.  That is, "will include" is more of a promise of future 
behavior than "consists of" which is present and absolute.  Next, you 
specified that the thing is part of a so-called translator group.  Sure, 
"consists of" is far too generic to cover that, so you would have to say 
`\translatorGroupConsists` or equivalent to get to that level of 
specificity.  But documentation can easily supplement this by informing 
people that contexts have translator groups, and that is where something 
like an engraver lives.

Should we not avoid polluting a language with over-specification, 
especially when it comes to implementation details that stand a chance 
of being changed?  So unless the distinction about translator groups is 
truly important, `\consists` and "consists of" seem to be sufficient for 
communicating the essentials.

Your point that `\remove` feels out of place is one I can agree with.  
However, invented words like "unconsists" are not my cup of tea; though 
to be honest, I wouldn't object too strongly provided we were unable to 
track down something more suitable.  And if there little reason to budge 
on `\consists`, then our options may be limited.

> > Nope, I am totally serious here.  How precisely would `\where`,
> > `\with`, and `\without` as stated here be in any way unclear or
> > incorrect?  These are simpler words that are reasonably precise with
> > virtually no conflicting connotations.
>
> \with is very extensively used.
>
> \new Voice \where { \accidentalStyle piano } { ... }
>
> is not just a massive change but also a change massively for the worse.

Your quoted example fails to justify why you think it would be for the 
worse.  The readings would be "create a new voice with an accidental 
style of piano" versus "create a new voice where the accidental style is 
piano".  Both are equally very plain and direct.  But I am willing to 
concede there is a scenario in LilyPond where `\with` is definitely the 
preferable term and/or that a supposed `\where` would be confusing 
and/or wrong.


-- Aaron Hill