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

[dak]

On 2012/09/28 06:26:03, janek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM,  <mailto:address@hidden> 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 is a verb: \set, \override, \revert, \hide*.

> antother disadvantage of \no is that one would expect plural after it,
> i.e. \no StringNumbers.
> So i drop the idea.

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 awkward.

The thing is that when a user picks between "\hide" and "\omit" without
much of a clue, "\omit" should rather be the preferred choice.

\no StringNumber
\no TimeSignature
\no Clef

looks quite no-nonsense.  Granted,

\omit StringNumber
\omit TimeSignature
\omit Clef

is quite straightforward as well but it looks a bit more like something
has been forgotten.  I don't thing that the absence of plural is an
issue.  After all, you can use "no" like "No tie, no shirt: no service!"
and you would not say "He was wearing no shirts.".

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.

The only drawback is that one might want \yes/\no as a pairing for some
different purpose.  \no is really a rather important word.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/