Comment #7 on issue 2002 by [email protected]: Enhancement: Add \hideNote
function for hiding single notes only
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2002
I don't see what makes \hideNotes more special than any of the dozens of
other commands in ly/property-init.ly, so I really don't want to provide it
as a core command in Lilypond.
That does not, I repeat not, mean that it does not make perfect sense to
define and use \hideNote in documents where it would save considerable
typing. And I definitely agree with you that the user should be able to
save typing when necessary.
So I would suggest that you mark this issue as "blocked" on issue 2003, and
change your patch by removing the _implementation_ part completely, and
instead base your documentation of the user writing
hideNote = \once hideNotes
(no braces required) manually at the start of the document, and use that to
illustrate the general possibility of using one-shot property overrides as
well as defining shortcuts for them.
The regtest would also get this line added.
Of course, I am shamelessly exploiting your work for the footwork of my own
issue. But I only got thinking about it _because_ of reviewing this, and
your notion "I mistakenly got the impression that it was too hard enough to
be implemented any time soon" was not at all unreasonable: there are quite
a few dark areas in Lilypond that nobody has touched for a long time, even
though this might have made things easier elsewhere.
So if you view issue 2003 not as something disrupting your own work or
competing with it, but rather enabling you to put your work on a more
elegant and general footing than the one you had to start with, perhaps it
will get easier to see this not as disrespect.
The real work is documenting this sensibly and creating nice regtests, and
you only need few changes to make it fit the new situation perfectly.
Leave the translations to the translators, and you'll find making those
changes not all that much work, and certainly not stealing the glory from
you just because I subverted the implementation.
@Graham: I don't see this as a GLISS issue as it would just add another
command upwards-compatibly. Making \once applicable to music expressions
in total would be more like a GLISS style discussion, though its
upward-compatibility makes it a good candidate for passing.
So if anybody is guilty of GLISSading, it is me and not Adam (basically I
am throwing a spanner in his works because of my private GLISS). I could
make this a non-GLISS issue by letting \once retain its current
implementation, and add a differently named \Once command for the complex
cases. It just seems completely pointless and not helpful to users.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
