Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

[Janek Warchoł]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> I must be in a controversial mood today since I feel like upholding the
> idea.  I had been thinking about it while fetching breakfast and eating
> and was about to reenter discussion when I found that I had already
> convinced you, so this is a bit awkward.

lol :)
Actually, my cousin gave another reason to change \omit to something
else: in his opinion omit implies \once in meaning.  Like, \omit
StringNumber sounds like only one StringNumber won't be printed.

> The only drawback is that one might want \yes/\no as a pairing for some
> different purpose.  \no is really a rather important word.

Yes, this is my concern, too.
What about \delete ?  Afaik it's not taken yet.


On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Marc Hohl <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 28.09.2012 09:30, schrieb address@hidden:
>> And things like \once\no Clef also work reasonably well.  The proposed
>> "\single" is more awkward, but "\single\omit Clef" is not that much
>> better, so maybe "\single" should change.
>
> I don't feel quite happy with \single either; just a spontaneous idea:
>
> does \here work?
>
> \here\EasyNoteHeadsOn c8 d e
>
> I'm not sure ...

hmm... not quite perfect.
No other idea, though...

best,
Janek