[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PATCH: Improved tablature support

From: Marc Hohl
Subject: Re: PATCH: Improved tablature support
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:50:38 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090608)

Carl Sorensen schrieb:

On 7/17/09 10:16 AM, "Marc Hohl" <address@hidden> wrote:

Carl Sorensen schrieb:
Right, so we *must* have the function mode.  Do we need the setting mode as
well?  I don't feel strongly about eliminating it, but I don't feel strongly
about keeping it either.  I trust your judgment.
I prefer to offer both variants.
However, now that I think about it, for the function call, I would prefer
the name \deadNotes (plural) instead of \deadNote (singular), because it can
take multiple notes in its argument.
Yes, I had that before, but I decided to remove the plural s, because
in chord constructs, it works only on the next note, and in normal
c d \deadNote e f
influences only the e (\deadNotes would imply to influence e and f, in
my opinion).
When one uses { }, \deadNote works on a group of notes, so the meaning here
is clear. So personnally, I wouldn't change it ...

Thinking of similar functions, like \relative and \harmonic, perhaps we
should just name the function to \dead.  Then we'd have

<c \dead e g>4 or \dead {c d e f g a b}

This also brings more distinction between \deadNotesOn and \dead; one of my
concerns was potential confusion between \deadNote and \deadNotesOn.  What
do you think?

Hm, sounds kind of morbid to me, calling a note "dead", but since
I am not a native english speaker, I cannot judge this from a neutral
point of view.
Do you think that there will arise big problems with these commands?
I think \deadNotesOn and \deadNote are rather self-explanatory, so I don't believe to confuse potential users.


reply via email to

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