Re: thanks again for the editionEngraver

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> 2014-07-30 0:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>>> As i said, defining new instrument contexts is very cheap - you can just do
>>>
>>> \newInstrument "ViolinI" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>>> \newInstrument "ViolinII" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>>>
>>> and have ViolinI and ViolinII available.
>>
>> Would it be feasible to put the context mods _before_ some reasonably
>> related argument, possibly like
>>
>> \newInstrument \with {} "ViolinI" "Violin" \with {} "StaffGroup"
>>
>> or probably
>>
>> \newInstrument "Violin" \with {} "ViolinI" \with {} "StaffGroup" ?
>>
>> Because when they are before a related non-optional argument, one can
>> make them optional.  Then if they are just \with {} anyway, you can omit
>> them.
>
> Good idea!  I'm fine with changing the order of the arguments; the
> function is still in the experimental phase and there's not much code
> depending on it.
>
> However, i'm not yet sure what would be the most intuitive and
> optional-argument friendly order of arguments; somehow your suggestion
> doesn't seem natural for me (but i don't feel strongly about it).
> Does anyone else have opinions?

Well, if the optional arguments should be independently optional, they
must each be followed by a mandatory argument.  To me it makes the most
sense to place them before the argument they "apply to": that
arrangement should always work.

I don't actually know which of the names are context types, and which
are context names.  So I cannot really vouch for the best order.

-- 
David Kastrup