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

[dak]

On 2012/10/02 03:38:42, dak wrote:
> 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?

"no is quite a general word".  There is some more rationale in comment
#4 <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048#msg4> and take a look at
the output of the following command:

git grep "#'stencil \+\(= \+\)\?##f"

I don't list the output here, but it is more than 200 lines (granted,
translations make up for quite a bit here, but even outside of
Documentation we have about 50 lines) suggesting that the operation of
overriding/tweaking the stencil to #f is not exactly uncommon.

So I'd really like to get a better understanding about what makes you
come to a different conclusion than the others involved in the
discussion.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/