"Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: > David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM > > >> "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> 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?
I am not suggesting that. But there is public consent that documenting them would be harmful to our users. I recommend you do a poll to find out which commands the users should be spared from knowing about. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
