On 2014/08/26 12:42:17, david.nalesnik wrote:
why not take advantage of the duplication for "c", "d", and the like in scm/define-note-names.scm?
Because it makes for an inscrutable and confusing patch/diff as witnessed by the reviews here. This should be done cleanly as two separate commits in order not to confuse the issue of removing the uncalled-for duplication with providing aliases. The resulting two commits would serve separate, _identifiable_ purposes. Also the duplication happens at a _different_ location than the original pitch definition. It makes much more sense moving the gn definition _right_ next to the g definition so that people reading the file do not get confused into thinking that gn is the _only_ available pitch definition because they encounter it alone at some place in the file. As a side effect, this reorganization would make the resulting two commits _independently_ revertable in case this should prove desirable at some point of time. So I would strongly urge against "taking advantage" of the existing problem for mixing its resolution with a different issue better solved separately. https://codereview.appspot.com/133840043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
