Paul Morris <[email protected]> writes: >> On May 20, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> (3. A mostly-trivial poetic bonus: regular and relative are easy to >>> remember as a pair because the alliteration of them both starting >>> with “re".) >> >> Bonus? Only native English speakers think along such lines, I >> reckon :-) >> >> I strongly vote against \regular in this context. It's far too easy >> to confuse it with \relative. > > :-) Fair enough, at least it did occur to me that this cuts both ways > and could be seen as a negative. > > If not “regular” then maybe there's something else along the lines of > "the default entry mode” as with plain {…}. \default is already > taken… I guess there's \standard but I don’t suppose it would fare > any better than \regular.
There are words like \static or \moored or \tethered which better match the semantics. But that's mostly for native English speakers rather than those whose familiarity with English stems predominantly from a vocabulary of computing terms. So it's more important to get a linguistic opposite of "relative" than a perfectly descriptive term. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
