Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[Trevor Daniels]

David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM


> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM
>>
>>> As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
>>> this doesn't say anything to non-programmers.  To put it differently:
>>> i'd prefer to solve this problem in a way that doesn't require
>>> *creating new push and pop commands*.  But i have no idea if this is
>>> possible.
>>> 
>>> In other words, we have \override, \tweak, \set, \revert, \unset,
>>> \undo, \single (and maybe more).  It's getting confusing, at least for
>>> me.  I'd prefer to decrease the number of such functions, not increase
>>> them (without deleting functionality, of course).
>>
>> Plus \once and now \temporary.  I agree this menagerie is going to be 
>> far more confusing to users than the occasional unexpected result after 
>> calling \crossStaff or \harmonicByFret - which no one has ever
>> noticed. 
> 
> No user is required to read the source to \crossStaff or
> \harmonicByFret.  That feat is entirely voluntary, and there is no
> guarantee that doing so is safe from damaging mind and body.

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting we should not document
these new functions?  If so, what is the set of commands which
should be documented?

Trevor