Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

[dak]

On 2012/10/02 00:23:55, Graham Percival wrote:

https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly
> File ly/music-functions-init.ly (right):


https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly#newcode649
> ly/music-functions-init.ly:649: no =
> why not use "omit" instead of "no" ?  I think that "omit" is more
specific; "no"
> is a quite general word and I don't think it makes sense here.

That has been discussed in comment #1 to comment #8 of this Rietveld
review.  Could you be a bit more specific about why you consider the
conclusion of this discussion invalid?

https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/