On Jun 3, 2023, at 04:09, Kevin Barry <barr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 at 06:06, Carl Sorensen <carl.d.soren...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I vote for adjusting the code so that it follows the documentation, >>> probably by adding `forceTimeSignature` and `forceKeySignature` >>> properties, both for orthogonality and a way to retain backward >>> compatibility. >>> >> >> I vote for initially just fixing the code -- use scm_equal_p instead of >> scm_is_eq >> >> At that point, we'd be consistent with the documentation. >> >> If there is a use case for 'forceTimeSignature' then I suppose we could >> create it, but it seems to me like YAGNI. > > My preference would be to leave things as they are (and update the > documentation), or, if not that, then follow Werner's suggestion. I > have sometimes needed to reprint a time signature even if it wasn't > different.
I am partial to changing the default behavior and providing a consistent way to override it. There are some things that I would change about `forceClef`. -- Dan
