On 20 mars 2013, at 03:24, d...@gnu.org wrote: > On 2013/03/19 22:37:14, wl_gnu.org wrote: >> >> After some consideration, I consider the name \broken suboptimal > since >> >> it implies two pieces. Two other possibilities would be \detached > and >> >> \fake. >> > >> > I vote for detached. > >> I vote for \broken. For me, it doesn't imply two pieces. This was >> David's first, quick suggestion, and I think it's good for exactly >> this reason. > > The first suggestion just picked this off the proposed music event name. > Here is why I consider \fake or \detached better: > > when I see \broken\< or \broken\!, this does not really help me figure > out where to use them. \broken\! actually looks, uh, broken. How do > you break an end spanner? > > However, \fake\< or \fake\! immediately make clear that we are talking > about something still being used in the function of a starting and > ending spanner, respectively.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of the average user, \fake would not mean a function that uses a fake post event, but rather a function that produces a \fake something. I would think "this makes a fake slur", which is not the case. I like \detached because it describes accurately what is going on - if I were reading the manual and saw that \detached ( created a slur detached from noteheads, I'd remember the command. \broken slightly less because we are not always breaking something (we are only doing that with \breakSlur). Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
