Re: LM 4.4.2 \fooDown \fooUp (and how about \textDown?)

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

----- Ursprüngliche Mitteilung -----
> 
> Carl Sorensen wrote Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:22 PM
> > On 12/21/10 1:14 PM, "Valentin Villenave" <address@hidden> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Oh, and by the way: we have \textSpannerDown for text spanners, 
> > > but
> > > not \textDown for simple TextScript objects (that are quite 
> > > likely to
> > > be needed by new users). Anyone against adding textDown, textUp,
> > > textNeutral?
> > 
> > Why should we add \textDown, \textUp, and \textNeutral? 
> > TextScript is
> > markup text, IIUC, and markup text attached to a note is always 
> > preceded by
> > ^ - or _, isn't it?   It seems to me that having special commands 
> > will just
> > cause confusion.
> 
> I agree.   The predefined commands that exist are
> useful because the preceding direction indicator
> may be omitted, but it may not be omitted from a
> \markup.

I don't agree. The predefined commands are useful to specify the default 
behavior - whether this is indicated by a - or by the omission of a specifier 
is irrelevant. Imagine a continuo part. For the celli/double basses you want 
the dynamics and probably also most markup text down. For the organ however you 
have the bass figures below the staff, so the dynamics and all markup text 
should default to up (by usung \dynamicUp etc.)

I agree, though, that *Up/Down are just shortcuts for property overrides, so 
it's not like we are missing functionality. It's just about consistency.

Cheers,
Reinhold