Users of scholarly.choice or scholarly.editorial-markup?

[Urs Liska]

Hi all,

does anyone know if the openLilyLib modules scholarly.choice and
scholarly.editorial-markup are actually used by people?

The reason I'm asking is that I have the impression that I should
rename the command \editorialMarkup to something different and would
like to know if this would significantly affect users.

I am putting the following code on a slide for a presentation, and it
just doesn't feel right:

\relative {
  ...

  \choice variants {
    \editorialMarkup lemma \with { source = "1756" } {
      c8 [ e d g, ]
      |
      e'16 [ d c8 ] r4
    }
    \editorialMarkup reading \with { source = "1769" } {
      c8 [ e ] d4
    }
  }

  ...
}

This encodes two alternative versions of music, as found in two
different sources. Through a configuration variable it can be decided
which readings to use in the engraving (well, this is pretty closely
related to using tags).

What the naming actually describes is that I *use* editorial markup to
encode one version as a "lemma" and another as a "reading". But that's
not what *should* be there. Actually I want to encode the versions "as"
lemma and reading.
For that it would of course be more straightforward to directly use
\lemma and \reading, but the concept is very flexible, has a number of
cases preconfigured and allows to define arbitrary types of
alternatives to be encoded.
[And just if anyone is interested: the "variants" type for choice is
defined to require two or more music variables from type "lemma" or
"reading", zero or one lemma.]

Urs