|
From: | Marc Hohl |
Subject: | Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads |
Date: | Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:58:58 +0200 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) |
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 7/23/09 12:28 PM, "Kieren MacMillan" <address@hidden> wrote:Hi Mark,is there a clear advantage to having a smaller namespace?No need to maintain crossrefs and aliases in the documentation. [Might not be a huge thing, but it's a "clear advantage".]I don't think it's necessary to maintain crossrefs. We have instrument-specific sections of the manual. Harmonics for string instruments can be introduced as \harmonic in the string instrument part of the notation. Silent presses (natural resonance) for keyboards can be taught in the keyboard part of the manual. The fact that both use diamond-shaped noteheads is irrelevant, as far as the manual is concerned, I think. Similarly, we can notate keySlap in woodwinds and deadNote in fretted strings. The fact that both use xNoteHead is irrelevant as far as the manual is concerned, IMO.
I think it would be the easiest way to define a neutral name first. Personally, I like the idea of \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff. We can add the desired aliases later (maybe it will lead to a file simply designed for this purpose, called aliases.ly?). Perhaps there is even a possibility to create a documentation comparable to the feta font glyphs which is generated automatically from the contents of the file, so there are all cross references included (I don't know if this would work). Marc
Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |