On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:38:43 -0700
"Patrick McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Trevor Daniels
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think is this too complicated. For crescendos there are just
> > two possibilities - cresc. or hairpins - and for decrescendos
> > there are four - decresc., decr., dim or hairpin. That is, six
> > altogether, so why do we need eight commands?
> >
> > Based on Graham's proposal I would suggest the following
> > as logical and clear:
> >
> > \crescAsCresc
> > \crescAsHairpin
> >
> > and
> > \dimAsDecresc
> > \dimAsDecr
> > \dimAsDim
> > \dimAsHairpin
>
> I really like this idea. I knew there was a more logical way to
> organize these commands.
Hmm... I actually preferred your original names. Although I *do*
like the \dimAs{Decresc/decr/dim}, since it links back to the \<
\> concept (ie decresc/decr/dim are all interally the same).
I'm not wild about the "As", as well, but that's probably just
because we don't use that word in other predefs.
What about these:
\crescTextCresc
\crescHairpin
\dimTextDecresc
...
It avoids the "what the Mao does \crescAsCresc mean? Isn't that a
logical tautology?" question.
> > If there is an objection to "Hairpin" perhaps "Graphic" would
> > do?
>
> IMO, "Hairpin" is better than "Graphic".
Given that the internals object is called Hairping, I definitely
agree.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
