Hi Lukas, Thanks for the quick and helpful reply!
>> I think it would be superior to have a single function with a switch for >> which side the hint note is on. >> 1. Do you agree? > > No, I think I don't. The reason is that (as Jean pointed out to me while I > was working on \after) the notes should be entered by the user in the order > in which they appear in print; basically that's why internally \afterGrace > does not use \after but repeats the internals structure of \after. Great point. >> 2. What’s your advice on the best UI/UX? > I think it's not bad as it is. Maybe \afterHint and \hint (or (\hintBefore or > something like that) would be easier to memorise? I like \hintAfter \hintBefore for now. >> 3. How would you code that? > Well, we don't need parser/location arguments anymore. I wondered about that! :) > There's also the smal issue that we take a ly:music? argument even though we > actually only want one note. We don't have a good predicate for this. But: > Isn't it safe to assume that the hint note will always be a 4 notehead? Then > we might make the code more concise by accepting only a ly:pitch?. Great idea, if that assumption is indeed safe… >> 4. Should we *not* be using \grace and \afterGrace [in largest part because >> of Issue 34]? Is there a better alternative? > No idea. The "correct" way would probably be to establish a new Grob > "HintNoteHead" instead of piggybacking in the grace mechanism, but that is a > bit of work ... Hmmm… I think I might have an idea. I’ll get back with an offer soon. Thanks! Kieren. __________________________________________________ My work day may look different than your work day. Please do not feel obligated to read or respond to this email outside of your normal working hours.
