David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM
> "Trevor Daniels" <[email protected]> writes: > >> Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM >> >>> As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as >>> this doesn't say anything to non-programmers. To put it differently: >>> i'd prefer to solve this problem in a way that doesn't require >>> *creating new push and pop commands*. But i have no idea if this is >>> possible. >>> >>> In other words, we have \override, \tweak, \set, \revert, \unset, >>> \undo, \single (and maybe more). It's getting confusing, at least for >>> me. I'd prefer to decrease the number of such functions, not increase >>> them (without deleting functionality, of course). >> >> Plus \once and now \temporary. I agree this menagerie is going to be >> far more confusing to users than the occasional unexpected result after >> calling \crossStaff or \harmonicByFret - which no one has ever >> noticed. > > No user is required to read the source to \crossStaff or > \harmonicByFret. That feat is entirely voluntary, and there is no > guarantee that doing so is safe from damaging mind and body. I don't understand. Are you suggesting we should not document these new functions? If so, what is the set of commands which should be documented? Trevor _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
