Re: PATCH: Improved tablature support

[Marc Hohl]

Carl Sorensen schrieb:
> On 7/17/09 10:16 AM, "Marc Hohl" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>   
> > Carl Sorensen schrieb:
> >     
> > > Right, so we *must* have the function mode.  Do we need the setting mode as
> > > well?  I don't feel strongly about eliminating it, but I don't feel strongly
> > > about keeping it either.  I trust your judgment.
> > >  
> > >       
> > I prefer to offer both variants.
> >     
> > > However, now that I think about it, for the function call, I would prefer
> > > the name \deadNotes (plural) instead of \deadNote (singular), because it can
> > > take multiple notes in its argument.
> > >  
> > >       
> > Yes, I had that before, but I decided to remove the plural s, because
> > in chord constructs, it works only on the next note, and in normal
> > contexts,
> > c d \deadNote e f
> > influences only the e (\deadNotes would imply to influence e and f, in
> > my opinion).
> > When one uses { }, \deadNote works on a group of notes, so the meaning here
> > is clear. So personnally, I wouldn't change it ...
> >     
>
> Thinking of similar functions, like \relative and \harmonic, perhaps we
> should just name the function to \dead.  Then we'd have
>
> <c \dead e g>4 or \dead {c d e f g a b}
>
> This also brings more distinction between \deadNotesOn and \dead; one of my
> concerns was potential confusion between \deadNote and \deadNotesOn.  What
> do you think?
>
>   
Hm, sounds kind of morbid to me, calling a note "dead", but since
I am not a native english speaker, I cannot judge this from a neutral
point of view.
Do you think that there will arise big problems with these commands?
I think \deadNotesOn and \deadNote are rather self-explanatory, so I 
don't believe to confuse potential users.

Marc
> Carl
>
>
>