On 2012/09/28 06:26:03, janek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, <mailto:d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g. >> \new Voice \with { \no StringNumber } > > It is grammatically cuter in connection with \with, but that's
actually
> more a problem of \with than of \omit: every other command working
on
> properties is a verb: \set, \override, \revert, \hide*.
antother disadvantage of \no is that one would expect plural after it, i.e. \no StringNumbers. So i drop the idea.
I must be in a controversial mood today since I feel like upholding the idea. I had been thinking about it while fetching breakfast and eating and was about to reenter discussion when I found that I had already convinced you, so this is a bit awkward. The thing is that when a user picks between "\hide" and "\omit" without much of a clue, "\omit" should rather be the preferred choice. \no StringNumber \no TimeSignature \no Clef looks quite no-nonsense. Granted, \omit StringNumber \omit TimeSignature \omit Clef is quite straightforward as well but it looks a bit more like something has been forgotten. I don't thing that the absence of plural is an issue. After all, you can use "no" like "No tie, no shirt: no service!" and you would not say "He was wearing no shirts.". And things like \once\no Clef also work reasonably well. The proposed "\single" is more awkward, but "\single\omit Clef" is not that much better, so maybe "\single" should change. The only drawback is that one might want \yes/\no as a pairing for some different purpose. \no is really a rather important word. http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
