On Friday 10 February 2006 21.47, Don Blaheta wrote: > Quoth Mats Bengtsson: > > It wouldn't make sense to let a user specify a context name > > with \new, since then there is no longer any guarantee that > > the context really is new, right? Also, if you want to name a > > context, then you should use \context. > > Would it make sense to permit \new Foo = "bar", but have it be an error > if a "bar" context already existed? I think that would actually help > someone get a good handle on exactly what contexts they're creating, as > opposed to which ones they are re-entering for whatever reason. It > would also help you catch when you accidentally reuse a name.
> I'm not proposing that \context Foo = "bar" *couldn't* create a new > context, though, as I don't think there's any error-checking benefit to > that and it would break all the old files. Maybe \context could be renamed to something else, such as \addto Staff=bar, since its primary use will be to append music to an existing context. The word "context" might sound scary/technical to a beginner. There is a small problem with introducing the syntax \new Foo=bar: it introduces another variable-number-of-arguments command to the grammar. I guess it's not a big problem though, since Han-Wen seems to like the idea. -- Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
