On 2018-06-15 09:03, David Kastrup wrote:
"consists of" and "will include the following as one of many
constituents upon instantiation to be part of its translator group" is
not the same.
I asked you to defend the hyperbolic "factually utterly wrong". At most
the distinctions are that of tense and a clarity of the underlying
mechanism. That is, "will include" is more of a promise of future
behavior than "consists of" which is present and absolute. Next, you
specified that the thing is part of a so-called translator group. Sure,
"consists of" is far too generic to cover that, so you would have to say
`\translatorGroupConsists` or equivalent to get to that level of
specificity. But documentation can easily supplement this by informing
people that contexts have translator groups, and that is where something
like an engraver lives.
Should we not avoid polluting a language with over-specification,
especially when it comes to implementation details that stand a chance
of being changed? So unless the distinction about translator groups is
truly important, `\consists` and "consists of" seem to be sufficient for
communicating the essentials.
Your point that `\remove` feels out of place is one I can agree with.
However, invented words like "unconsists" are not my cup of tea; though
to be honest, I wouldn't object too strongly provided we were unable to
track down something more suitable. And if there little reason to budge
on `\consists`, then our options may be limited.
Nope, I am totally serious here. How precisely would `\where`,
`\with`, and `\without` as stated here be in any way unclear or
incorrect? These are simpler words that are reasonably precise with
virtually no conflicting connotations.
\with is very extensively used.
\new Voice \where { \accidentalStyle piano } { ... }
is not just a massive change but also a change massively for the worse.
Your quoted example fails to justify why you think it would be for the
worse. The readings would be "create a new voice with an accidental
style of piano" versus "create a new voice where the accidental style is
piano". Both are equally very plain and direct. But I am willing to
concede there is a scenario in LilyPond where `\with` is definitely the
preferable term and/or that a supposed `\where` would be confusing
and/or wrong.
-- Aaron Hill
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user