2008/7/8 James E. Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I vote, as a pianist, for sustainDown/sustainUp. Who's with me?
Oh, please don't make it a "with me" question... Understanding your point of view and sharing or not doesn't make anyone "with" or "without" you. Actually, it is as a pianist too that I proposed this change several weeks ago... (and yes, following the discussions on -devel is quite interesting, it took me to a whole new level when I first subscribed to it). I fully understand your point, as much as I hope you understand Graham's. When I suggested that, it wasn't really because of a possible confusion with Up and Down as in \stemUp and \stemDown; it was simply because I noticed that my (French) pupils had a (slightly) hard time understanding what was \sustainDown for. On/Off is much more natural to them (again, as non-English speakers), since it's the same syntax as \textLengthOn for instance. Please, try to think of On/Off as a simple-looking syntax, not a computer-ish thing. Yes, it looks binary, but Down/Up was actually binary too: where I would completely agree with you is if LilyPond allowed for "semi-down" pedal, which it currently doesn't. Since Down/Up is slightly less self-explanatory for beginners, non-pianist or non-English speakers, I proposed On/Off. And Mark has a good point: we can even have a "alternate predefined commands" bunch of snippets in the LSR, in case we'd like to maintain some commands such as \fatText, \sustainDown etc. Cheers, Valentin _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
