On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Flaming Hakama by Elaine <ela...@flaminghakama.com> writes: > > > I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem. > > Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of > what > > I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation. > > > > > > Let's start with the main point: > > > > THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORDER > OF > > THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE NAMES > ARE > > CALLED > > > > Do you agree with that? You should, since it is true. > > No, I don't agree with it.
Then you are being obstinate. A statement of fact, and you don't agree with it. What are we to do with such childish behavior? > If you cannot distinguish "high correlation > though not 100%" from "no correlation", I don't see a point in > continuing. The definition of << // // // >> behaves the same way 100% of the time. Let's name the voices to reflect what it does with them: set the default stem direction and indentation. Not vertical voice order on the staff. By trying to name voices of << // // // >> by vertical voice order on the staff, we introduce confusion, since that isn't what << // // // >> does. > The reason the various shifts and stem directions are > assigned in the manner and order they are is because this tends to > minimize collisions for the _customary_ note order within voice > stacking. It's not arbitrary at all, so "nothing to do with" just is > plain wrong. > Except that there seems to be a vast disagreement about what this order is or should be, and this tends to maximize confusion. My statement was about the relationship between voices in << // // // >> and their vertical position on the page, which is that there isn't any. And it is still true, despite the fact that you don't enjoy the implications. I understand that we are trying to make the syntax as close to typical usage as possible. However, you don't seem to understand that choosing a naming convention that implies one thing, yet does another, is not a good user interface. Even if the convention is 90% right, that makes working the remaining 10% of cases almost as much of a chore as carrying on a conversation with you. We can get it 100% right, so why not do it? Cheers, David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com self-immolation.info skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
