On 2018-06-14 23:58, David Kastrup wrote:
Flaming Hakama by Elaine <ela...@flaminghakama.com> writes:
Here is a usage of the \consists command:
\context {
\Staff
\consists Mark_engraver
\consists Metronome_mark_engraver
}
To convey what this does, it would be more along the lines of
"Create a Staff context that consists of a Mark_engraver and
Metronome_mark_engraver".
Which forms a grammatical statement which, when interpreted at
its grammatical meaning, is factually utterly wrong.
On 2018-06-15 06:54, David Kastrup wrote:
Engraver/translator instances are particular to a certain context. The
context exercises its contained translator_group implementation as the
main manner of its operation. If that sounds opaque it is because the
terminology at the C++ level is one incoherent mess.
So, which way is it? Elaine's reading of `\consists` as "consists of"
is entirely a plausible interpretation that seems to jive with how you
describe how translators are instanciated as part of a context. What
was (or is) "factually utterly wrong" about it?
With my fallacious ideas rent assunder, it seems like `\consists` is a
perfectly fine word. `\consistsOf` or `\consistingOf` would certainly
be more grammatically correct, but it sounds like you still have
something against that.
Finally, what about `\with` becoming `\where`? It reads just as
plainly, and would free up the term if we wanted to opt for `\with`
and `\without` as opposed to `\consists` and `\remove`.
Frankly, by now I suspect that you did not actually close the sarcasm
tag you opened at the start of your comment.
Nope, I am totally serious here. How precisely would `\where`, `\with`,
and `\without` as stated here be in any way unclear or incorrect? These
are simpler words that are reasonably precise with virtually no
conflicting connotations.
-- Aaron Hill
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
