On 2012/10/02 03:38:42, dak wrote:
On 2012/10/02 00:23:55, Graham Percival wrote: >
https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly
> File ly/music-functions-init.ly (right): > >
https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly#newcode649
> ly/music-functions-init.ly:649: no = > why not use "omit" instead of "no" ? I think that "omit" is more
specific;
"no" > is a quite general word and I don't think it makes sense here.
That has been discussed in comment #1 to comment #8 of this Rietveld
review.
Could you be a bit more specific about why you consider the conclusion
of this
discussion invalid?
"no is quite a general word". There is some more rationale in comment #4 <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048#msg4> and take a look at the output of the following command: git grep "#'stencil \+\(= \+\)\?##f" I don't list the output here, but it is more than 200 lines (granted, translations make up for quite a bit here, but even outside of Documentation we have about 50 lines) suggesting that the operation of overriding/tweaking the stencil to #f is not exactly uncommon. So I'd really like to get a better understanding about what makes you come to a different conclusion than the others involved in the discussion. http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
