Re: Issue 2859: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-10-04 Thread Janek Warchoł
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:05 PM, wrote: > > Here are a few other suggestions: > 120 Moby Thesaurus words for "annihilate": [...] Let's call it \slay. After that we only need to create a Dragon grob and we'll have a fairy-tale. ;) ___ lilypond-deve

Re: Issue 2859: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-10-03 Thread dak
On 2012/10/03 19:32:15, pounderd_lineone.net wrote: >Original Message >From: mailto:d...@gnu.org >Call me an optimist, but I think we are good now. Apologies if this ship has sailed, but has anyone considered \suppress and \unsuppress? The ship has not sailed, but retailoring the

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs(issue 6575048)

2012-09-30 Thread David Kastrup
Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> I prefer \single to \next. >>> >>> \justOne \onlyOne ? >> >> It is, in a way, a complement to \once, so I would want to avoid >> multiple-word approaches leading to CamelCase. > > Had someone already suggested \here? Yes. -- David Kastrup __

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs(issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread Werner LEMBERG
>> I prefer \single to \next. >> >> \justOne \onlyOne ? > > It is, in a way, a complement to \once, so I would want to avoid > multiple-word approaches leading to CamelCase. Had someone already suggested \here? Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing l

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs(issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread David Kastrup
"Trevor Daniels" writes: > David Kastrup wrote Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:47 PM > >> Since by far the easiest time to press a change is before a first >> version is installed, people should speak up now if they feel that >> is significantly better than >> for changing just the head on e', o

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs(issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread Trevor Daniels
David Kastrup wrote Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:47 PM > Marc Hohl writes: > >> Am 29.09.2012 11:01, schrieb David Kastrup: >>> Marc Hohl writes: >>> Am 28.09.2012 17:40, schrieb d...@gnu.org: >> hmm... not quite perfect. >> No other idea, though... > \here misses the relat

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread Marc Hohl
Am 29.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Colin Campbell: On 12-09-29 09:47 AM, David Kastrup wrote: I am not convinced. Unless I see either a new proposal that I feel I can get behind myself, or more prominent public support for one of the numerous existing proposals including \next, I am going to stick wi

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread Colin Campbell
On 12-09-29 09:47 AM, David Kastrup wrote: I am not convinced. Unless I see either a new proposal that I feel I can get behind myself, or more prominent public support for one of the numerous existing proposals including \next, I am going to stick with \single. Since by far the easiest time to

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread David Kastrup
Marc Hohl writes: > Am 29.09.2012 11:01, schrieb David Kastrup: >> Marc Hohl writes: >> >>> Am 28.09.2012 17:40, schrieb d...@gnu.org: > hmm... not quite perfect. > No other idea, though... \here misses the relation to the next item (not that \single is much better). \directly

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread Marc Hohl
Am 29.09.2012 11:01, schrieb David Kastrup: Marc Hohl writes: Am 28.09.2012 17:40, schrieb d...@gnu.org: hmm... not quite perfect. No other idea, though... \here misses the relation to the next item (not that \single is much better). \directly was nicer in that regard. \next would possibly

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread David Kastrup
Marc Hohl writes: > Am 28.09.2012 17:40, schrieb d...@gnu.org: >> >>> hmm... not quite perfect. >>> No other idea, though... >> >> \here misses the relation to the next item (not that \single is much >> better). \directly was nicer in that regard. \next would possibly also >> work. > Having to

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-29 Thread Marc Hohl
Am 28.09.2012 17:40, schrieb d...@gnu.org: On 2012/09/28 15:06:38, janek wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, wrote: > I must be in a controversial mood today since I feel like upholding the > idea. I had been thinking about it while fetching breakfast and eating >

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-28 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> The only drawback is that one might want \yes/\no as a pairing for some > different purpose. \no is really a rather important word. I don't think that this is a problem, at least I've never seen someone using \no. It's exactly the same amount to type as ##f. Werner

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-28 Thread dak
On 2012/09/28 15:06:38, janek wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, wrote: > I must be in a controversial mood today since I feel like upholding the > idea. I had been thinking about it while fetching breakfast and eating > and was about to reenter discussion when I

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-28 Thread Janek Warchoł
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, wrote: > I must be in a controversial mood today since I feel like upholding the > idea. I had been thinking about it while fetching breakfast and eating > and was about to reenter discussion when I found that I had already > convinced you, so this is a bit awkwa

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-28 Thread Marc Hohl
Am 28.09.2012 09:30, schrieb d...@gnu.org: [...] And things like \once\no Clef also work reasonably well. The proposed "\single" is more awkward, but "\single\omit Clef" is not that much better, so maybe "\single" should change. I don't feel quite happy with \single either; just a spontaneous

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-28 Thread dak
On 2012/09/28 06:26:03, janek wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, wrote: >> what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g. >> \new Voice \with { \no StringNumber } > > It is grammatically cuter in connection with \with, but that's actually > more a problem of \wit

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-27 Thread Janek Warchoł
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, wrote: >> what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g. >> \new Voice \with { \no StringNumber } > > It is grammatically cuter in connection with \with, but that's actually > more a problem of \with than of \omit: every other command working on > properties i

Re: Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-27 Thread dak
Reviewers: janek, Message: On 2012/09/28 05:18:42, janek wrote: sorry to join the discussion so late... what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g. \new Voice \with { \no StringNumber } As for the code, it LGTM. It is grammatically cuter in connection with \with, but that's actual

Provide \hide and \omit functions for transparent and void glyphs (issue 6575048)

2012-09-27 Thread janek . lilypond
sorry to join the discussion so late... what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g. \new Voice \with { \no StringNumber } As for the code, it LGTM. http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org h