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

[David Kastrup]

Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 29.09.2012 11:01, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Am 28.09.2012 17:40, schrieb address@hidden:
>>>>> hmm... not quite perfect.
>>>>> No other idea, though...
>>>> \here misses the relation to the next item (not that \single is much
>>>> better).  \directly was nicer in that regard.  \next would possibly also
>>>> work.
>>> Having to choose between \single and \next, I would take \next.
>> After thinking this over, I realized what worries me about \next: next
>> is a loop control command in a number of different languages like awk,
>> perl, Python.
> ... or think about TeX ;-)
>>   It is also frequently used for linked list pointers.  All
>> of those common uses in computing are quite grammatically different in
>> their usage.
> But on the other hand, we talk about usability, and I am not quite sure
> that *every* user thinks Perl/Python/TeX when he or she writes Lilypond.
> And \next seems to be more self-explanatory than \single (at least to
> me, it is).

I am not convinced.  Unless I see either a new proposal that I feel I
can get behind myself, or more prominent public support for one of the
numerous existing proposals including \next, I am going to stick with
\single.

Since by far the easiest time to press a change is before a first
version is installed, people should speak up now if they feel that
<c' \next \easyHeadsOn e' g'> is significantly better than
<c' \single \easyHeadsOn e' g'> for changing just the head on e', or if
they think they have another good name.

-- 
David Kastrup