From: Graham Percival [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On 3-Aug-05, at 11:44 PM, Sven Axelsson wrote: > > Our Fearless Leader will object to this, probably using dire phrases > like "polluting the global LilyPond namespace" and "creating future > support nightmares". What happens in six months when we > decide to add hideKeySignature to the general lilypond commands?
Fine, I can understand that, but having this in the bagpipe include file does not pollute the global namespace, since it isn't included by default. And if a user does include it, he will also want to have the hidden behaviour. Thus, no problem. > > Keeping these commands in bagpipe.ly would ensure that we > > don't clash with anything else. We can then assume that anyone > > who includes bagpipe.ly do want to write bagpipe music and that > > they are fine with the "hidden" behaviour of also setting the key > > signature. > > I don't think we want *any* hidden behaviour -- especially when it's > not needed. What's wrong with using bagpipeHideKeySignature? > ok, it's a bit longer to type; we could figure out a shorter name. Nothing wrong as such of course. But why should that bagpipe command be treated specially? What if a \trebling markup is added elsewhere? Should I then use \bagpipeTrebling instead? This can happen to any command. -- Sven Axelsson _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
