Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

[Keith OHara]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:42:59 -0700, <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 2012/10/02 11:01:52, Keith wrote:
> > Still looks good.
>
> What does still look good?

The code, with either choice of naming.

> <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/#msg4>, so I'd like to see
> the points made in comment #4 countered for swaying the decision.

The points in comment #4 are true, but weak arguments compared to the desire 
for consistency in using verb-words to name functions that act on the next 
element.

I suppose '\no Stem' "looks quite no-nonsense" and I can look in the manual to 
learn what it is doing in its no-nonsense fashion.  I do not share your sense that '\omit 
Flag' makes it look like something was forgotten, but it is a valid concern.

> "nullus".

I forgot about that, and it does act like an article in things like the French 
'nulle part' for 'nowhere'.

> It would be kind of unusual to use this in the middle of music without
> \once either way.

Well, I often suppress dynamics in one part when I am using \partcombine.  
Sometimes the parts separate, but only due to minor differences in rhythm, so 
combined dynamics are still clear and look cleaner.

scoreDynamicsOff = \tag #'score {
    \override DynamicText #'stencil = #point-stencil
    \override Hairpin #'stencil = #point-stencil }
scoreDynamicsOn =  \tag #'score {
    \revert DynamicText #'stencil
    \revert Hairpin #'stencil }

(Now that more bugs are fixed, yes, #f is better than 'point-stencil.)

Browsing mutopiaproject, I found temporary removals of the Tuplet stencils
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/SchumannR/O25/schumann-widmung/schumann-widmung.ly

If you name it '\hide', I'll probably make an '\unHide' to revert the stencil.  
If you name it \no, I'll name the stencil-restoring function '\restore'. You 
can paint your shed whatever color you like.