On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 10:08 AM David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Luca Fascione <[email protected]> writes: > > In this case, it isn't actually a "base" but essentially the full thing. > The only way in which a book and bookpart differ is in their > relationship and use: a book can have bookparts. > I'm just being overly analytic here, David, but I think I'm hearing you say that this thing currently called "book" is really a "collection of parts", so why not call it part collection? (Or something that means that). It's that case with the recursive data structure I was talking about before, no? Like, I think I hear you say that a book is a SetOfParts (well, ordered, obviously, so maybe not "set"). > Because of that "basically a book" thing, calling it a book (like it is > done now) may also be an option, but it is awkward to say "a bookpart is > a book that is part of a full book (?)" and the term "bookpart" is > already established at the LilyPond language level. > Oh absolutely, this seems to always be the case when naming types in recursive structures. That you end up wanting to say that a "Set of X" _is_ an "X" and that just feels "not right". > For better or worse, LilyPond already hogs quite a few common English > compound name components. I don't think it makes sense to become overly > cute like calling that base class a "Fascicle". It makes more sense to > pick something that says "basically a book" in a manner that would also > work with other entities, and in spite of the common word root, "book > base" suggests something quite less complete. > It does, but if it's the shared parent in the type hierarchy, that's not necessarily a reason to discard it. It's not complete by design, it's what enables the generic behaviours that you need. Seems like a fairly easy to defend design to me > Given the amount of C++ code Dan churns through, I might also be > inclined to listen to his LilyPond word sense: he might be running > across any finalized choice a whole lot. > Indubitably, I'm just soundboarding here in the hopes that verbalizing through it helps see the way forward better. HTH, L -- Luca Fascione
