Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

Just adding my 2¢...

> > I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a
> > lot of commands that create the same look but mean different
> > things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean
> > a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using
> > LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get
> > stuck in ambiguous semantics.
>
> I agree with your concern with semantics.

-1: I would much rather see one WISIWYG (What It Says Is What You  
Get) function rather than multiple WIMGRITSCDF (What It Means Gets  
Resolved Internally To Some Completely Different Function) functions.  
First of all, it minimizes namespace crowding; secondly, it reduces  
confusion and complexity in the docs (no need for crossrefs, etc.).

> The user semantic would be worse.

-1: The *composer-user* semantic might [!] be worse, but the  
*engraver-user* semantic would be better.

> There are two different kinds of semantics that apply.  One is the  
> semantic
> that the composer sees.  The other is the semantic that the  
> engraver sees.

If by "engraver" you mean "person who is using Lilypond to engrave",  
then +1.  =)

The main problem I see in this thread is that we're trying to turn  
Lilypond into a *composing* application rather than thinking of it as  
purely an *engraving* application: when I *compose* for strings (I  
use pen and paper) I create/use/think "harmonics", but when I  
*engrave* the score (I use Lilypond) I code/use/think "diamond".

> There could be an argument that we don't want to unnecessarily  
> expand the namespace

+1.

> I think that your argument about having correct semantics is a  
> valid argument.

Meh... -1/2.  ;)
Kieren.