On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:42:59 -0700, <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
On 2012/10/02 11:01:52, Keith wrote:
Still looks good.
What does still look good?
The code, with either choice of naming.
<URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/#msg4>, so I'd like to see
the points made in comment #4 countered for swaying the decision.
The points in comment #4 are true, but weak arguments compared to the desire
for consistency in using verb-words to name functions that act on the next
element.
I suppose '\no Stem' "looks quite no-nonsense" and I can look in the manual to
learn what it is doing in its no-nonsense fashion. I do not share your sense that '\omit
Flag' makes it look like something was forgotten, but it is a valid concern.
"nullus".
I forgot about that, and it does act like an article in things like the French
'nulle part' for 'nowhere'.
It would be kind of unusual to use this in the middle of music without
\once either way.
Well, I often suppress dynamics in one part when I am using \partcombine.
Sometimes the parts separate, but only due to minor differences in rhythm, so
combined dynamics are still clear and look cleaner.
scoreDynamicsOff = \tag #'score {
\override DynamicText #'stencil = #point-stencil
\override Hairpin #'stencil = #point-stencil }
scoreDynamicsOn = \tag #'score {
\revert DynamicText #'stencil
\revert Hairpin #'stencil }
(Now that more bugs are fixed, yes, #f is better than 'point-stencil.)
Browsing mutopiaproject, I found temporary removals of the Tuplet stencils
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/SchumannR/O25/schumann-widmung/schumann-widmung.ly
If you name it '\hide', I'll probably make an '\unHide' to revert the stencil.
If you name it \no, I'll name the stencil-restoring function '\restore'. You
can paint your shed whatever color you like.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
