On 8/5/09 2:44 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
> Carl, Marc
>
> After the long discussion about naming the
> new cross-head function and associated predefs
> I see you have retained deadNote as the base
> name.
>
> I thought the outcome of the discussion
> was to use xHead or crossHead for the base
> name with deadNote being defined to invoke
> the base function and predefs, so preparing
> the way for other musical functions and predefs
> to be defined to invoke the same base functions.
>
> Why did you decide not to do this?
Given that the current usage is specifically designed for guitar tablature
(as evidenced by the inclusion of TabNoteHead changes), it seemed the most
semantically appropriate thing to do was to use deadNote.
If we decide to use this same function for the general case of switching to
a cross-shaped notehead, then we will redefine it to either crossHead or
xHead, but we will still keep deadNote (the semantically correct term for
guitar tablature) as an alias for xHead.
In the meantime, we can move forward on tablature.
As I see it, the current decision causes problems only if we were to change
to xHead in the future and eliminate deadNote. And I see no plans in the
future to eliminate deadNote.
Does this make sense to you?
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
