On 2012/10/03 06:27:56, Keith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:15:23 -0700, <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> \hide and \no are for different purposes
Oops, I forgot we were talking about the name 'no' for the function
'\omit'.
The command to restore the stencil could be \unOmit or \restore.
\restore is too generic a name for me, without viable connection to
\omit.
I had to look up \remit in the dictionary, and couldn't find
any meaning that fits this situation.
Hm?
2. To restore. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]
The archbishop was . . . remitted to his liberty.
--Hayward.
[1913 Webster]
Granted, "obsolete" in usage, but a reasonably good pairing for omit. I
don't like \unOmit, though it matches the rather hideous \unHide (what
was the idea in camelCasing that? "unhide" is a nice proper word, and
unhideNotes would have been quite fine), since there is no word "unomit"
in English language. That would be "\include", and this is already
taken. Or "\reinclude", and that's far too unobvious in its relation to
\omit.
Incidentally, \unHide _can_ work as a tweak (setting transparent to
##f), whereas \remit or whatever would not know _what_ to restore the
stencil to and thus is confined to be a revert.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
