[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issue 2002 in lilypond: Enhancement: Add \hideNote function for hidi

From: lilypond
Subject: Re: Issue 2002 in lilypond: Enhancement: Add \hideNote function for hiding single notes only
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 10:25:07 +0000

Comment #7 on issue 2002 by address@hidden: Enhancement: Add \hideNote function for hiding single notes only

I don't see what makes \hideNotes more special than any of the dozens of other commands in ly/property-init.ly, so I really don't want to provide it as a core command in Lilypond.

That does not, I repeat not, mean that it does not make perfect sense to define and use \hideNote in documents where it would save considerable typing. And I definitely agree with you that the user should be able to save typing when necessary.

So I would suggest that you mark this issue as "blocked" on issue 2003, and change your patch by removing the _implementation_ part completely, and instead base your documentation of the user writing
hideNote = \once hideNotes
(no braces required) manually at the start of the document, and use that to illustrate the general possibility of using one-shot property overrides as well as defining shortcuts for them.

The regtest would also get this line added.

Of course, I am shamelessly exploiting your work for the footwork of my own issue. But I only got thinking about it _because_ of reviewing this, and your notion "I mistakenly got the impression that it was too hard enough to be implemented any time soon" was not at all unreasonable: there are quite a few dark areas in Lilypond that nobody has touched for a long time, even though this might have made things easier elsewhere.

So if you view issue 2003 not as something disrupting your own work or competing with it, but rather enabling you to put your work on a more elegant and general footing than the one you had to start with, perhaps it will get easier to see this not as disrespect.

The real work is documenting this sensibly and creating nice regtests, and you only need few changes to make it fit the new situation perfectly. Leave the translations to the translators, and you'll find making those changes not all that much work, and certainly not stealing the glory from you just because I subverted the implementation.

@Graham: I don't see this as a GLISS issue as it would just add another command upwards-compatibly. Making \once applicable to music expressions in total would be more like a GLISS style discussion, though its upward-compatibility makes it a good candidate for passing.

So if anybody is guilty of GLISSading, it is me and not Adam (basically I am throwing a spanner in his works because of my private GLISS). I could make this a non-GLISS issue by letting \once retain its current implementation, and add a differently named \Once command for the complex cases. It just seems completely pointless and not helpful to users.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]