Re: \defineBarLine is confusing

[Trevor Daniels]

Keith OHara wrote Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:14 AM


> Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> The description of \defineBarLine in NR 1.2.5 does
>> not make it clear that the parameter called bartype
>> doubles as both the name of the barline being defined
>> and the definition of the bar line to be used in
>> the middle of the line (i.e. not at the beginning or
>> the end.)  
> 
>> Why not "\defineBarLine normal end start span"?
> 
> I agree that the simple list of four arguments would be better.
> 
> I traced the history to find the discussion at the point where the
> grouping was introduced:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-09/msg01031.html

Hm, there was very little discussion of this point in a very long
thread.  Only David expressed an opinion AFAICS.  I think I
must have stopped following it at the time due to the length of the
thread.

I came across this when trying to document \inStaffSegno better,
and had to use the new \defineBarLine documentation in the NR.
I couldn't understand it without referring to the Scheme implementation
which used a simple list of four arguments and was perfectly clear.
So either the user interface or the documentation (or probably both)
should be improved.

> I think there might be consensus to reverse that decision.
> (I would raise a tracker issue, but maybe better to give it a day 
> on the mailing list in case there is other input.)

OK.  No one else has chimed in yet.  Maybe no one else has
tried to understand \defineBarLine from scratch :)

Trevor