On 7/17/09 10:16 AM, "Marc Hohl" <m...@hohlart.de> wrote:
> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>>
>> Right, so we *must* have the function mode. Do we need the setting mode as
>> well? I don't feel strongly about eliminating it, but I don't feel strongly
>> about keeping it either. I trust your judgment.
>>
> I prefer to offer both variants.
>> However, now that I think about it, for the function call, I would prefer
>> the name \deadNotes (plural) instead of \deadNote (singular), because it can
>> take multiple notes in its argument.
>>
> Yes, I had that before, but I decided to remove the plural s, because
> in chord constructs, it works only on the next note, and in normal
> contexts,
> c d \deadNote e f
> influences only the e (\deadNotes would imply to influence e and f, in
> my opinion).
> When one uses { }, \deadNote works on a group of notes, so the meaning here
> is clear. So personnally, I wouldn't change it ...
Thinking of similar functions, like \relative and \harmonic, perhaps we
should just name the function to \dead. Then we'd have
<c \dead e g>4 or \dead {c d e f g a b}
This also brings more distinction between \deadNotesOn and \dead; one of my
concerns was potential confusion between \deadNote and \deadNotesOn. What
do you think?
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
