Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM
>
>
>> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM
>>>
>>>> As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
>>>> this doesn't say anything to non-programmers.  To put it differently:
>>>> i'd prefer to solve this problem in a way that doesn't require
>>>> *creating new push and pop commands*.  But i have no idea if this is
>>>> possible.
>>>> 
>>>> In other words, we have \override, \tweak, \set, \revert, \unset,
>>>> \undo, \single (and maybe more).  It's getting confusing, at least for
>>>> me.  I'd prefer to decrease the number of such functions, not increase
>>>> them (without deleting functionality, of course).
>>>
>>> Plus \once and now \temporary.  I agree this menagerie is going to be 
>>> far more confusing to users than the occasional unexpected result after 
>>> calling \crossStaff or \harmonicByFret - which no one has ever
>>> noticed. 
>> 
>> No user is required to read the source to \crossStaff or
>> \harmonicByFret.  That feat is entirely voluntary, and there is no
>> guarantee that doing so is safe from damaging mind and body.
>
> I don't understand.  Are you suggesting we should not document
> these new functions?  If so, what is the set of commands which
> should be documented?

I am not suggesting that.  But there is public consent that documenting
them would be harmful to our users.  I recommend you do a poll to find
out which commands the users should be spared from knowing about.

-- 
David Kastrup