[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: \segno is an articulation?

From: James Lowe
Subject: Re: \segno is an articulation?
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:44:04 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1


On 26/02/2021 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:
Dan Eble <> writes:

LilyPond currently has commands \segno, \coda, and \varcoda, which
create articulations.  I'm looking for encouragement and approval to
repurpose \segno and \coda as section delimiters.  If I don't get it,
my new commands will have to be named something like \segnoSection and

To use \segno and \coda, I would have to rename the existing commands,
but I'm not sure what would make the most sense.  \segnoArticulation,
\codaArticulation, and \varcodaArticulation would get the job done,
but the name of a technique would fit better with the rest of the
\segnoSign etc maybe?  It makes at least the statement that it's only
the sign without function attached to it.  \segnoMark could be
misinterpreted to work like a mark rather than an articulation.

convert-ly considerations aside (and really trying not to bike-shed), would it be simpler using this example, if we did away with /segno and instead of re-purposing created explicit commands (e.g. /segnoSign, /segnoSection, /segnoWhatever etc.) so that there was never any confusion moving forward?

re-purposing is never pretty (people forget or unexpected things break) and at least everyone would know which /segno command did what.


Attachment: OpenPGP_0xAAC8D177A7F5A364.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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