bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Issue 2047 in lilypond: Patch: Add \accidentalStyle command

 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: Issue 2047 in lilypond: Patch: Add \accidentalStyle command Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:24:05 +0100 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux)

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:11 AM
>
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:09 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>>>
>>>> \accidentalStyle command
>>>>
>>>> Tsk tsk tsk.  Currently working on the documention, and it is
>>>> rather
>>>> stupid that we have \accidentalStyle "default" but
>>>> $(set-accidental-style "default" 'GrandStaff). I lean towards >>>> allowing _only_ strings as accidentalStyle (currently >>>> accidentalStyle #'default is working) and instead take an optional >>>> symbol argument, like >>>> \accidentalStyle #'GrandStaff "default". At the time the command >>>> is >>>> executed, I can't use ly:context-find for reliably distinguishing >>>> context symbols from others. >>>> >>>> People ok with reserving symbols for context specification, >>>> allowing >>>> only strings for style spec? >>> >>> I realize that the syntax has to be different, but it >>> may be strange to users to remember this one exception. >> >> Your objection seems reasonable. If it had been raised somewhat >> earlier, it might have made me think about using a different >> convertrule >> (the source tree is currently full of \accidentalStyle "whatever"). >> >> On the other hand, this is not a directly specified form of a >> property >> setting command (like \set, \override), and commands like \bar, >> \clef, >> \instrumentSwitch, \language don't take symbols, but strings. >> >> So this does not seem like an iron-clad rule. > > As far as the UI is concerned the key consideration > is whether the rules which define when #,$, ' and
> " should be used can be stated clearly and simply
> in a way which can be understood by a user who is
> unfamiliar with computer science terms.  If they can
> be stated more clearly with this change then I'm in
> favour of it.

I would be lying if I claimed to believe this particular decision to be
a step in either direction.

Lilypond uses symbols in quite a few situations, and it has no "native"
syntax for it.  Instead you call them using #'symbolname.  I have
considered making a,b,c,d a list of symbols (could be handy on the
command line), but in a document as opposed to the command line, not
putting a space after "," would be ugly, and then we still don't have a
syntax for single symbols.

I don't see consistency or a recognizable scheme lurking around the
corner.

--
David Kastrup