Re: Renaming \setTextCresc, \setHairpinCresc, etc.

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:38:43 -0700
"Patrick McCarty" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Trevor Daniels
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > I think is this too complicated.  For crescendos there are just
> > two possibilities - cresc. or hairpins - and for decrescendos
> > there are four - decresc., decr., dim or hairpin.  That is, six
> > altogether, so why do we need eight commands?
> >
> > Based on Graham's proposal I would suggest the following
> > as logical and clear:
> >
> > \crescAsCresc
> > \crescAsHairpin
> >
> > and
> > \dimAsDecresc
> > \dimAsDecr
> > \dimAsDim
> > \dimAsHairpin
> 
> I really like this idea.  I knew there was a more logical way to
> organize these commands.

Hmm... I actually preferred your original names.  Although I *do*
like the \dimAs{Decresc/decr/dim}, since it links back to the \<
\> concept (ie decresc/decr/dim are all interally the same).

I'm not wild about the "As", as well, but that's probably just
because we don't use that word in other predefs.

What about these:
\crescTextCresc
\crescHairpin
\dimTextDecresc
...

It avoids the "what the Mao does \crescAsCresc mean?  Isn't that a
logical tautology?" question.

> >  If there is an objection to "Hairpin" perhaps "Graphic" would
> > do?
> 
> IMO, "Hairpin" is better than "Graphic".

Given that the internals object is called Hairping, I definitely
agree.

Cheers,
- Graham