On 20 mars 2013, at 06:07, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > "m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> writes: > >> 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. > > It makes a fake slur start or end.
The word "fake" still doesn't sit right with me... There is nothing fake about the slur: { a \fake ( b c d ) } It is real. The function, to me, should describe an attribute of the slur. The slur looks detached and broken, but not fake. There are commands like slurDashed, slurDotted, etc. that describe what the output will be like. I think it's important to stay in that logic. If we're going to use this for many spanners, my vote would be \broken. The slurs look broken, and things like beams and hairpins will definitely look broken as well if we split them using the same sort of algorithm. To me, something can look "broken" and this designation does not have any bearing on if all the pieces are there or not. It is a quality of the object. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel