Re: Issue 2047 in lilypond: Patch: Add \accidentalStyle command

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:24 AM


> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:11 AM
> >
> > > "address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:09 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Comment #9 on issue 2047 by address@hidden: Patch: Add
> > > > > \accidentalStyle command
> > > > > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2047
> > > > >
> > > > > Tsk tsk tsk.  Currently working on the documention, and it is
> > > > > rather
> > > > > stupid that we have \accidentalStyle "default" but
> > > > > $(set-accidental-style "default" 'GrandStaff).  I lean towards
> > > > > allowing _only_ strings as accidentalStyle (currently
> > > > > accidentalStyle #'default is working) and instead take an 
> > > > > optional
> > > > > symbol argument, like
> > > > > \accidentalStyle #'GrandStaff "default".  At the time the 
> > > > > command
> > > > > is
> > > > > executed, I can't use ly:context-find for reliably 
> > > > > distinguishing
> > > > > context symbols from others.
> > > > >
> > > > > People ok with reserving symbols for context specification,
> > > > > allowing
> > > > > only strings for style spec?
> > > >
> > > > I realize that the syntax has to be different, but it
> > > > may be strange to users to remember this one exception.
> > >
> > > Your objection seems reasonable.  If it had been raised somewhat
> > > earlier, it might have made me think about using a different
> > > convertrule
> > > (the source tree is currently full of \accidentalStyle 
> > > "whatever").
> > >
> > > On the other hand, this is not a directly specified form of a
> > > property
> > > setting command (like \set, \override), and commands like \bar,
> > > \clef,
> > > \instrumentSwitch, \language don't take symbols, but strings.
> > >
> > > So this does not seem like an iron-clad rule.
> >
> > As far as the UI is concerned the key consideration
> > is whether the rules which define when #, $, ' and
> > " should be used can be stated clearly and simply
> > in a way which can be understood by a user who is
> > unfamiliar with computer science terms.  If they can
> > be stated more clearly with this change then I'm in
> > favour of it.
>
> I would be lying if I claimed to believe this particular decision 
> to be
> a step in either direction.

As long as it does not make things worse I vote
for going ahead.

> Lilypond uses symbols in quite a few situations, and it has no 
> "native"
> syntax for it.  Instead you call them using #'symbolname.  I have
> considered making a,b,c,d a list of symbols (could be handy on the
> command line), but in a document as opposed to the command line, 
> not
> putting a space after "," would be ugly, and then we still don't 
> have a
> syntax for single symbols.

Let's defer a longer discussion of this to GLISS.

Trevor