[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: Issue 2047 in lilypond: Patch: Add \accidentalStyle command
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:01:38 -0000

David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:24 AM

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:11 AM

"address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:

On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:09 AM, address@hidden wrote:

Comment #9 on issue 2047 by address@hidden: Patch: Add
\accidentalStyle command

Tsk tsk tsk.  Currently working on the documention, and it is
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
executed, I can't use ly:context-find for reliably distinguishing
context symbols from others.

People ok with reserving symbols for context specification,
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
(the source tree is currently full of \accidentalStyle "whatever").

On the other hand, this is not a directly specified form of a
setting command (like \set, \override), and commands like \bar,
\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.

As long as it does not make things worse I vote
for going ahead.

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.

Let's defer a longer discussion of this to GLISS.


reply via email to

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