"Trevor Daniels" <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:11 AM > >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> Comment #9 on issue 2047 by [email protected]: Patch: Add >>>> \accidentalStyle command >>>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2047 >>>> >>>> Tsk tsk tsk. Currently working on the documention, and it is >>>> rather >>>> stupid that we have \accidentalStyle "default" but >>>> $(set-accidental-style "default" 'GrandStaff). I lean towards >>>> allowing _only_ strings as accidentalStyle (currently >>>> accidentalStyle #'default is working) and instead take an optional >>>> symbol argument, like >>>> \accidentalStyle #'GrandStaff "default". At the time the command >>>> is >>>> executed, I can't use ly:context-find for reliably distinguishing >>>> context symbols from others. >>>> >>>> People ok with reserving symbols for context specification, >>>> allowing >>>> only strings for style spec? >>> >>> I realize that the syntax has to be different, but it >>> may be strange to users to remember this one exception. >> >> Your objection seems reasonable. If it had been raised somewhat >> earlier, it might have made me think about using a different >> convertrule >> (the source tree is currently full of \accidentalStyle "whatever"). >> >> On the other hand, this is not a directly specified form of a >> property >> setting command (like \set, \override), and commands like \bar, >> \clef, >> \instrumentSwitch, \language don't take symbols, but strings. >> >> So this does not seem like an iron-clad rule. > > As far as the UI is concerned the key consideration > is whether the rules which define when #, $, ' and > " should be used can be stated clearly and simply > in a way which can be understood by a user who is > unfamiliar with computer science terms. If they can > be stated more clearly with this change then I'm in > favour of it.
I would be lying if I claimed to believe this particular decision to be a step in either direction. Lilypond uses symbols in quite a few situations, and it has no "native" syntax for it. Instead you call them using #'symbolname. I have considered making a,b,c,d a list of symbols (could be handy on the command line), but in a document as opposed to the command line, not putting a space after "," would be ugly, and then we still don't have a syntax for single symbols. I don't see consistency or a recognizable scheme lurking around the corner. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
