On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 4:07 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Trevor Bača <trevorb...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:02 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > >> Trevor Bača <trevorb...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > I am concerned by what seems to be an unwillingness to use the term > >> > "duration" to label things in the system that are clearly durations. > >> > >> Computers are not fond of ambiguities. I am concerned by what seems to > >> be an unwillingness to use consistent terminology while expecting > >> consistent results. > >> > > > > Hi David, is what's at stake here a desire to use the word "duration" to > > mean just the LilyPond-specific construct that looks like ... > > > > 4.. > > 16 > > 16. > > 32.. > > > > ... and so on? > > > > Is that what's going on here? > > "Is that what is going on here" sounds like you imagine yourself to have > uncovered a conspiracy attempting to make LilyPond harder to use. > > There is nothing to be gained from trying to use the same name for > different data types just because humans are good at disentangling > ambiguities from context. > > There actually is a comparatively well-known (among programmers and > computer scientists) aphorism by Alan Perlis about this: > > When someone says, "I want a programming language in which I need > only say what I want done," give him a lollipop. > > Terminology in LilyPond may be drawn from common vocabulary (we would > not consider calling a duration a "ruminant"), but in the context of > LilyPond's data types, a term that happens to have eight or more > dictionary meanings in the English language will have exactly one > well-defined meaning in LilyPond. > David, may I please have a direct answer to my question? Is your motivation that you want to strictly limit the word "duration" to mean only LilyPond's (highly idiosyncratic) "dotted integer" notation? -- Trevor Bača www.trevorbaca.com soundcloud.com/trevorbaca
