Re: Quotes around \consists argument?

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:

>> \new Staff                not  \new "Staff"
>> \override NoteHead.color  not  \override "NoteHead"."color"
>> \repeat volta             not  \repeat "volta"
>> \change Staff             not  \change "Staff"
>> 
>> OK to drop that policy? I can easily make a patch to sed out all
>> existing occurrences if consistency would be desired.
>
> I vote for dropping the double quotes, inspite of David's concerns.

More like "remarks" instead of "concerns", and also putting some light
on purportive arguments I don't consider strong.  Essentially we had
that discussion at some previous point of time where the situation was
pretty much the same and came to a different conclusion then.  It's
essentially an aesthetic decision and its effect should likely be
cross-checked with available syntax highlighters (possibly Frescobaldi
and our current documentation highlighter).

One difference to the time we had the last discussion is that one can
now register user-defined engravers.  I don't see how this should affect
the decision, however.

So the main change appears to be the aesthetics of currently active
developers.  That could change again, so some more persuasive rationale
would be nice to have this end up more lasting.

-- 
David Kastrup