David Kastrup <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 27. Aug. 2026, 21:50: > > > I just want to second the doubts whether it's really a good idea to use > > the term "item" here, which has a very specific and well-defined meaning > in > > LilyPond lore. > > It would be invisible to anybody but C++ programmers. I think I'd get > crucified for a class Book_or_bookpart . I thought of Book_pages, but > pages actually are what ends up in a Paperbook, not a Book. Bookish is > really too sloppy. One could do Book_content, but frankly in C++ it > seems more important to keep to C++ "lore" than to LilyPond lore. >
Well, yes. The set of people who sometimes dabble in the C++ part of LilyPond while not being really qualified for it (learning on the job, so to speak) is presumably small. I'm in that set, and I see myself getting confused by reading "item" here - asking myself whether the occurrence of that word here is in some sense related to what I had learned about items in LilyPond before. If you feel that more experienced programmers are not likely to get confused here, then feel free to forget my remark. Probably two lines of commentary in the C++ class definition will be enough to clear things up, anyway. Lukas > > You can see that I did not feel like letting the class hierarchy > actually bleed over into Scheme/LilyPond: "book or bookpart" is glossing > over the base class as a named entity. > > -- > David Kastrup >
