Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

[Thomas Morley]

2016-01-05 17:48 GMT+01:00 Paul Morris <address@hidden>:
> Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme 
> syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer 
> needing # for numbers).  This has really simplified things for users.
>
> As another small step along these lines, would it make sense to free booleans 
> from the ##t and ##f syntax?  Compare:
>
>   \override Context.Grob.property = ##t
>
>   \override Context.Grob.property = ##f
>
>   \override Context.Grob.property = \true
>
>   \override Context.Grob.property = \false
>
> Providing \true and \false would (1) allow users to stay in familiar LilyPond 
> syntax (avoiding the awkward double ## that’s unintuitive to new users) and 
> (2) improve readability by using the whole word.  (I for one find it hard to 
> quickly see the difference between ##f and ##t at a glance.)
>
> Implementation would be trivial, of course:
>
>   true = ##t
>   false = ##f
>
> Thoughts?
> -Paul
>
> P.S. Guile 2.0 introduces #true and #false as alternatives to #t and #f per 
> R7RS, presumably for better readability:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Booleans.html



Why not?

But speaking only for myself, I love those #t and #f, short and clear.
Also, I never use the form `end-of-line-invisible', etc for
break-visibility, I simply can't memorize what it means.
The vector-form #(#f #t #t) is so obvious...

Cheers,
  Harm