Re: Quotes around \consists argument?

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 24/04/2022 à 17:41, David Kastrup a écrit :
> 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).



I checked Frescobaldi, Emacs and Vim (both with modes from our
sources), jEdit (with LilyPondTool), lilybin.com, hacklily.org.
None of them had any issue.



> 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.


Well, one reason is that this enables the documentation highlighter
to highlight engraver names in a special color/style picked based on their
nature of engravers (purple in HTML, italic bold in PDF), whereas
between quotes they are just strings.

I observed the same with Emacs, Vim and jEdit.

Jean