|
From: | Trevor Daniels |
Subject: | Re: Contemporary music documentation |
Date: | Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:20:50 +0100 |
Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:46 AM
On 9/5/09 7:12 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:Hmm. This could be a meaningless semantic quibble, or it could besomething that's fundamental to the docs, GLISS, and development in general. Is a change to the autobeaming, done via \overrideAutoBeamSettings, consititude a "tweak"? Offhand, I'd say "yes".No, I don't think they are tweaks. That is a defined command to achieve aparticular behavior.In my opinion, a call to \overrideBeamSettings is fundamentally equivalentto a call to \hideNotes. It's specific defined LilyPond syntax.
Another way of assessing this is to look at the complexity of the command. The old auto-beam- setting commands were certainly specific and did not use \override or \set but they were so difficult to get right few people managed it without help. I'd call them tweaks. The new \overrideBeamSetting commands are a little simpler, but not by much, and I think many users will also struggle with them. I'd call these tweaks too. Both differ fundamentally from \hideNotes and similar commands in that Scheme syntax is exposed to the user. This is the criterion I would use in separating tweaks from non-tweaks. I think it might be the criterion users would use too. Trevor
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |