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

[dak]

On 2012/10/02 11:01:52, Keith wrote:
> Still looks good.

What does still look good?

> \omit is better than \no because 'omit' is a verb like we use in
parallel
> constructions \override, etc.  A verb is appropriate because your
function does
> perform an action: the \f is conceptually part of the music but your
function
> omits it from the printed score.

The "verb" aspect was stressed in comment #2
<URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/#msg2> and put into
perspective in comment #4
<URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/#msg4>, so I'd like to see
the points made in comment #4 countered for swaying the decision.

> No is used in several senses in English.  Here it serves as an article
(like
> German "kein") but it also an adverb ("nein").

This has been addressed in comment #7
<URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/#msg7>.

> I do not think Latin languages
> have a single-word negative article.

"nullus".

> { c\f \no DynamicText c\f\> d\p }

> for a moment I read "this might look like Dynamic text but it is not".
 What the
> function does, though, is order LilyPond to henceforth omit
DynamicTexts from
> the score.

Or henceforth put no DynamicText in the score.  That's pretty much a
tossup in meaning.

It would be kind of unusual to use this in the middle of music without
\once either way.  So you'd see either
\once\no DynamicText c\f  or
c-\no\f  or
c-\single\no DynamicText \f or
{ \no DynamicText ...  or
\with { \no DynamicText ...

as compared to
\once\omit DynamicText c\f  or
c-\omit\f  or
c-\single\omit DynamicText \f  or
{ \omit DynamicText ...  or
\with { \omit DynamicText ...

and, as I said, \no/\omit is much more likely to be what a user wants
over \hide, so using a more mnemonic abbreviation seems appropriate.

This is not really anything that has not been said in previous comments,
but I also have seen little indication that the previous comments are
being considered and countered, at least with regard to comment #9.

I definitely agree that "\omit" is more consistent in its naming scheme
to "\no", and I considered breaking this consistency appropriate in
order to give \no an edge over \hide and similar and make it more
idiomatic.

If people don't agree with that design goal, we can change this, but at
least I'd want to be sure that this objective has been considered before
being dropped.

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