Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

>Original Message >From: d...@gnu.org >Date: 03/10/2012 15:04 >To: "Janek Warchoł" >Cc: , , >Subj: Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048) > >Janek Warchoł writes: > >> On Wed, Oc

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

Janek Warchoł writes: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> incompatible with my reverse überbikeshed proposal since >> \un\without would be quite garish > > omg lol! > > PS i think that sending a request for name suggestions on user might > be a good idea. Maybe they'll pr

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > incompatible with my reverse überbikeshed proposal since > \un\without would be quite garish omg lol! PS i think that sending a request for name suggestions on user might be a good idea. Maybe they'll propose something else that fits. ___

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

Francisco Vila writes: > 2012/10/2 : >> No is used in several senses in English. Here it serves as an article >> (like German "kein") but it also an adverb ("nein"). I do not think >> Latin languages have a single-word negative article. > > Spanish has «sin» ="without" , "with no" > > «sin alc

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012/10/2 : > No is used in several senses in English. Here it serves as an article > (like German "kein") but it also an adverb ("nein"). I do not think > Latin languages have a single-word negative article. Spanish has «sin» ="without" , "with no" «sin alcohol» ="non-alcoholic" «sin un cénti

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

David Kastrup writes: > Well, "remittere" means "to release", from its word constituents > "back-send". "omittere" means "to give up, disregard", from its word > constituents "counter-send". > > In any case, suitable naming of reversals look like doubling the number > of bikesheds, so I propose

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

"Keith OHara" writes: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:25:30 -0700, wrote: > >> 2. To restore. [Obs.] >> [1913 Webster] >> >>The archbishop was . . . remitted to his liberty. >> --Hayward. >> > > Don't believe everything

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:25:30 -0700, wrote: 2. To restore. [Obs.] [1913 Webster] The archbishop was . . . remitted to his liberty. --Hayward. Don't believe everything you read. Both 'remit' and 'restore' would

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On 2012/10/03 06:27:56, Keith wrote: On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:15:23 -0700, wrote: > \hide and \no are for different purposes Oops, I forgot we were talking about the name 'no' for the function '\omit'. The command to restore the stencil could be \unOmit or \restore.

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:15:23 -0700, wrote: \hide and \no are for different purposes Oops, I forgot we were talking about the name 'no' for the function '\omit'. The command to restore the stencil could be \unOmit or \restore. I had to look up \remit in the dictionary, and couldn't find any

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM, wrote: > Given existing naming choices, \hide/\unHide is an obvious pairing. > \omit/unOmit would be logical but awkward, I'd lead towards > \omit/\remit. Whoah, i didn't know that "remit" is a proper English word! Sounds like "Kermit" to me... :P (frankly, one of

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On 2012/10/03 04:04:07, Keith wrote: If you name it '\hide', I'll probably make an '\unHide' to revert the stencil. If you name it \no, I'll name the stencil-restoring function '\restore'. You can paint your shed whatever color you like. \hide and \no are for different purposes (so far, \h

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:42:59 -0700, wrote: On 2012/10/02 11:01:52, Keith wrote: Still looks good. What does still look good? The code, with either choice of naming. http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/#msg4>, so I'd like to see the points made in comment #4 countered for swaying the de

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

@James: good question about \remove. @David: the example you gave helped me understand why the thing James asked about was not quite possible, thanks! It looks that the decision whether to use \omit or \no is really difficult. Personally i consider both of them valid, with slight preference for \

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On 2012/10/02 11:50:04, J_lowe wrote: I know \remove has been taken, but is it possible to make a function (?) know what the context of it's action is? \remove is a reserved word, so it is treated specially in the syntax. If we hypothesize that it was a function, determining its context would

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

I know \remove has been taken, but is it possible to make a function (?) know what the context of it's action is? Context not in the LP sense. That is if I use '\remove BLAH', the software 'knows' that it isn't the same as the \remove we also use as opposite of what we currently use \consists for

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On 2012/10/02 11:01:52, Keith wrote: Still looks good. What does still look good? \omit is better than \no because 'omit' is a verb like we use in parallel constructions \override, etc. A verb is appropriate because your function does perform an action: the \f is conceptually part of the

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

Still looks good. \omit is better than \no because 'omit' is a verb like we use in parallel constructions \override, etc. A verb is appropriate because your function does perform an action: the \f is conceptually part of the music but your function omits it from the printed score. No is used in

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On 2012/10/02 03:38:42, dak wrote: On 2012/10/02 00:23:55, Graham Percival wrote: > https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly > File ly/music-functions-init.ly (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly#newcode649

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

On 2012/10/02 00:23:55, Graham Percival wrote: https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly File ly/music-functions-init.ly (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly#newcode649 ly/music-functions-init.ly:649: no = why

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly File ly/music-functions-init.ly (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/diff/8001/ly/music-functions-init.ly#newcode649 ly/music-functions-init.ly:649: no = why not use "omit" instead of "no" ? I think that "omi

Re: Provide \hide and \no functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

Too bad that \delete is taken... Maybe using \no is the right choice, although i'd prefer to make this decision after GLISS decides that we don't need \no for something else. As for \single vs. \next, i don't have a strong opinion. Janek http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/