On 2012/10/03 04:04:07, Keith wrote:
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.
\hide and \no are for different purposes (so far, \hide has been unflayed by bikeshedding), but indeed reversal has not been taken into account for our discussion so far. Given existing naming choices, \hide/\unHide is an obvious pairing. \omit/unOmit would be logical but awkward, I'd lead towards \omit/\remit. \no has no good reversion, and the pairing \no DynamicText / \yes DynamicText is too awful to contemplate. So shall we conclude this round of bikeshedding with changing back to \omit and adding \unHide and \remit here? Those would be \reverts, not usable as a \tweak. \remit can be used for reverting other stencil overrides, so one could also call it \reStencil or \restencil, but I am not sure that people will make the connection to \omit then, its most likely use case. http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
