On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Manual writers: can we make up our minds here? I've always been >> against frivolous syntax for shortcuts (one example in particular is >> the "q" for repetition). Why do we put in "q" for users to save some >> keystrokes, and at the time propose to require a mostly redundant '-' >> in front of zillions of postevents? > > Right, and getting rid of q would be quite hard. Why not have your > favourite editor (Emacs in lilypond-mode, JEdit or Frescobaldi) do > the right thing, ie, copy the previous note/chord when you type q? > > The introduction of q says: we favour writing over reading. What > do we find important? Better readability, saving keystrokes, > stability...? > >> The question is starting off on from the wrong premise. >> >> * the command is called \parenthesize. It's a verb, and I don't think >> we have any postfix verbs > > Fortunately, we probably chose verbs for music functions, although I'm > not sure all music functions are verbs?
Yes, I noticed that - it would be good to make all functions operating on arguments be verbs; similarly, \times could be renamed to something more verby. > Wouldn't it be helpful if from the syntax one could tell functions from > postfix operators simple statements? In most languages function > invocations are easy to spot. I think in Perl you can have functions > look like dead statements, but that's probably just making the argument > better. <offtopic>I find it interesting that you are giving Perl while we are discussing readability.</offtopic> -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
