Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

On 2012-10-13 23:29, David Kastrup wrote:
> > >If you are referring to Werner's and Reinhold's comments, I think you
> > >may not be reading them as the authors intended. In particular, I
> > >believe that Reinhold was merely objecting to the names "push" and
> > >"pop" as being opaque to non-programmers,
>      To me it is not only this inconsitency, but rather that the names
>      push/pop come from programming languages and concepts.
>      Lately, I have seen many suggestions that would turn lilypond more
>                                                                   ^^^^^
>      into a programming language and away from being a description of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      music. Now, while lilypond really is a programming language, in the
>      past we have tried to hide the concepts (e.g. queue theory) from the
>      user, with more or less success.
>
>      David's attempts to get rid of the #' in propery names is a great step
>      in this direction, but using push/pop would be a huge step in the
>      wrong direction, IMO.


Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough in that last sentence. It would have 
been clearer if I wrote
 ... but using the names "push" and "pop" ...

The thing about programming languages was intended to give a larger 
picture why I don't like pure programming concepts introduced to 
lilypond users, and using the names "push" and "pop" introduces stack 
concepts to the users, rather than providing a user-friendly (i.e. 
musician-friendly, not programmer-friendly) high-level API to the users.

Cheers,
Reinhold

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://www.kainhofer.com
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * Edition Kainhofer, Music Publisher, http://www.edition-kainhofer.com