David Kastrup wrote > "\redraw" implies overdrawing, and the others don't carry a "visual" > connotation. True, neither does \omit. > > Apart from "replace" being more likely to collide with other uses, the > order of arguments would favor substitute as its grammar can be > > substitute xxx for yyy > > compared to > > replace xxx with yyy > > and the usage would list the replacement first. \retouch is not really > a two-object verb, so while it does describe the action nicely, its > usage is not as natural.
Good points on the advantages of \substitute over \replace. On \redraw and \retouch I'd say that \redraw is actually a better description of the action. Here are some definitions (from New Oxford American Dictionary): retouch - improve or repair (a painting, a photograph, makeup, etc.) by making slight additions or alterations. redraw - draw or draw up again or differently: a judge forced Los Angeles to redraw its districts | the diagram was redrawn. So while retouch implies slight changes to what's already there (and remains there, not removed or replaced), redraw conveys replacement by a new version. But as you said, neither of them are two-object verbs so the usage is not as natural as with \substitute. Cheers, -Paul -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Re-Issue-3918-Add-alternatingTimeSignatures-issue-97110045-tp162462p162705.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
