Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[Colin Campbell]

On 12-10-13 10:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM
> >
> >
> > > "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > 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?
> I am not suggesting that.  But there is public consent that documenting
> them would be harmful to our users.  I recommend you do a poll to find
> out which commands the users should be spared from knowing about.


I wonder if David and Trevor are talking about the same commands here: 
David brought up the example of reading the source of \crossStaff while 
Trevor seems to be referring to \override, \tweak et al.  FWIW, an 
uneducated bystander such as I agrees with David’s (implied) position: 
\crossStaff is a black box, and I only need to know what to put in for 
an expected output.  Trevor raises (or at least, seems to me that he 
does) the diligent and wise caution that this whole set of paired 
functions will best be served by some well-organised carpentry in NR at 
least and probably at least passing mention in LM.

Cheers,
Colin

--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both 
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )