"Trevor Daniels" wrote: > Given the wide variation in the use of the > x-shaped note head I think the only possible > name to use is one that reflects the shape of > the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or > similar - rather than trying to find a suitable > generic name which adequately covers all these > disparate uses.
I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a lot of commands that create the same look but mean different things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get stuck in ambiguous semantics. Another (smaller) example I've been thinking about recently is the diamond notehead. On a string instrument, it means to put your finger lightly on the string to activate a specific harmonic node, and we have the \harmonic command for that. But on the piano, a diamond notehead usually means to push down that piano key silently so its strings will vibrate sympathetically. There's no \depressSilently command, and there's no \diamond command. Even the glyph itself is called s0harmonic, so I'm stuck using \harmonic in a case that has nothing to do with harmonics. (Well, there *is* a diamond glyph, but it's not the same!) Anyway, what's the best solution to this? Imagine if we replaced all uses of \harmonic with something like \diamond. Now strings and pianos would be on equal terms (I guess), but a lot of meaning would be lost. One more example... We have \stemup, \tieUp, \slurUp, \dynamicUp, etc. but those are all descriptive, not semantic. But we also have \voiceOne which conveys all of the visually descriptive stuff, and also conveys something which, as but one example, can be used by other programs in specific ways, when interfacing with LilyPond. What do you guys think? - Mark _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user