On 2012-10-13 23:29, David Kastrup wrote:
>If you are referring to Werner's and Reinhold's comments, I think you
>may not be reading them as the authors intended. In particular, I
>believe that Reinhold was merely objecting to the names "push" and
>"pop" as being opaque to non-programmers,
To me it is not only this inconsitency, but rather that the names
push/pop come from programming languages and concepts.
Lately, I have seen many suggestions that would turn lilypond more
^^^^^
into a programming language and away from being a description of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
music. Now, while lilypond really is a programming language, in the
past we have tried to hide the concepts (e.g. queue theory) from the
user, with more or less success.
David's attempts to get rid of the #' in propery names is a great step
in this direction, but using push/pop would be a huge step in the
wrong direction, IMO.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough in that last sentence. It would have
been clearer if I wrote
... but using the names "push" and "pop" ...
The thing about programming languages was intended to give a larger
picture why I don't like pure programming concepts introduced to
lilypond users, and using the names "push" and "pop" introduces stack
concepts to the users, rather than providing a user-friendly (i.e.
musician-friendly, not programmer-friendly) high-level API to the users.
Cheers,
Reinhold
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://www.kainhofer.com
* Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
* http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
* Edition Kainhofer, Music Publisher, http://www.edition-kainhofer.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
