Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-07-30 0:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> As i said, defining new instrument contexts is very cheap - you can just do
>>>
>>> \newInstrument "ViolinI" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>>> \newInstrument "ViolinII" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>>>
>>> and have ViolinI and ViolinII available.
>>
>> Would it be feasible to put the context mods _before_ some reasonably
>> related argument, possibly like
>>
>> \newInstrument \with {} "ViolinI" "Violin" \with {} "StaffGroup"
>>
>> or probably
>>
>> \newInstrument "Violin" \with {} "ViolinI" \with {} "StaffGroup" ?
>>
>> Because when they are before a related non-optional argument, one can
>> make them optional. Then if they are just \with {} anyway, you can omit
>> them.
>
> Good idea! I'm fine with changing the order of the arguments; the
> function is still in the experimental phase and there's not much code
> depending on it.
>
> However, i'm not yet sure what would be the most intuitive and
> optional-argument friendly order of arguments; somehow your suggestion
> doesn't seem natural for me (but i don't feel strongly about it).
> Does anyone else have opinions?
Well, if the optional arguments should be independently optional, they
must each be followed by a mandatory argument. To me it makes the most
sense to place them before the argument they "apply to": that
arrangement should always work.
I don't actually know which of the names are context types, and which
are context names. So I cannot really vouch for the best order.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
