Re: \context foo = "bar" vs. \new foo

[Erik Sandberg]

On Friday 10 February 2006 21.47, Don Blaheta wrote:
> Quoth Mats Bengtsson:
> > It wouldn't make sense to let a user specify a context name
> > with \new, since then there is no longer any guarantee that
> > the context really is new, right? Also, if you want to name a
> > context, then you should use \context.
>
> Would it make sense to permit \new Foo = "bar", but have it be an error
> if a "bar" context already existed?  I think that would actually help
> someone get a good handle on exactly what contexts they're creating, as
> opposed to which ones they are re-entering for whatever reason.  It
> would also help you catch when you accidentally reuse a name.

> I'm not proposing that \context Foo = "bar" *couldn't* create a new
> context, though, as I don't think there's any error-checking benefit to
> that and it would break all the old files.

Maybe \context could be renamed to something else, such as \addto Staff=bar, 
since its primary use will be to append music to an existing context. The 
word "context" might sound scary/technical to a beginner.

There is a small problem with introducing the syntax \new Foo=bar: it 
introduces another variable-number-of-arguments command to the grammar. I 
guess it's not a big problem though, since Han-Wen seems to like the idea.

-- 
Erik