Lukas-Fabian Moser via Discussions on LilyPond development <[email protected]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 27. Aug. 2026, 21:50: > >> >> > I just want to second the doubts whether it's really a good idea to use >> > the term "item" here, which has a very specific and well-defined meaning >> in >> > LilyPond lore. >> >> It would be invisible to anybody but C++ programmers. I think I'd get >> crucified for a class Book_or_bookpart . I thought of Book_pages, but >> pages actually are what ends up in a Paperbook, not a Book. Bookish is >> really too sloppy. One could do Book_content, but frankly in C++ it >> seems more important to keep to C++ "lore" than to LilyPond lore. >> > > Well, yes. The set of people who sometimes dabble in the C++ part of > LilyPond while not being really qualified for it (learning on the job, so > to speak) is presumably small. I'm in that set, and I see myself getting > confused by reading "item" here - asking myself whether the occurrence of > that word here is in some sense related to what I had learned about items > in LilyPond before. > > If you feel that more experienced programmers are not likely to get > confused here, then feel free to forget my remark. Probably two lines of > commentary in the C++ class definition will be enough to clear things up, > anyway. Frankly, this is turning into a whole lot of bikeshedding. I'll just pick some name and be done, and if anyone wants to create a followup issue renaming everything, they are welcome to do the relevant discussions. I'd rather spend my time working on the implementation. -- David Kastrup
