Re: \segno is an articulation?

[James Lowe]

Hello

On 26/02/2021 23:38, David Kastrup wrote:
> Dan Eble <dan@faithful.be> 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
> > \codaSection.
> >
> > 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
> > articulations.
> \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.

James

OpenPGP_0xAAC8D177A7F5A364.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature