On 2012/09/28 15:06:38, janek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, <mailto:d...@gnu.org> wrote: > 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.
lol :) Actually, my cousin gave another reason to change \omit to something else: in his opinion omit implies \once in meaning. Like, \omit StringNumber sounds like only one StringNumber won't be printed.
Maybe.
> The only drawback is that one might want \yes/\no as a pairing for
some
> different purpose. \no is really a rather important word.
Yes, this is my concern, too.
Well, at some point of time we need to crack it open, anyway.
What about \delete ? Afaik it's not taken yet.
Guile begs to differ: scheme@(guile-user)> delete $1 = #<procedure delete (_ _)>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Marc Hohl <mailto:m...@hohlart.de>
wrote:
> Am 28.09.2012 09:30, schrieb d...@gnu.org: >> 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. > > I don't feel quite happy with \single either; just a spontaneous
idea:
> > does \here work? > > \here\EasyNoteHeadsOn c8 d e > > I'm not sure ...
hmm... not quite perfect. No other idea, though...
\here misses the relation to the next item (not that \single is much better). \directly was nicer in that regard. \next would possibly also work. http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
