Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

[Urs Liska]

Am 14.06.2018 um 15:56 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
>
> > \variant seems unsuitable not only for the potential mistakes. Many cases will 
> > not deal with variants but single events. For example you may want to simply 
> > state that some notes are illegible, which is an editorial assessment and not a 
> > variant. The same goes for \option.
> >
> > The common aspect would be "editorial markup", but \markup is not an option, 
> > obviously.
> \edmark
> ?

Maybe the right direction.
\edMarkup
?

> You also might consider having \variant as the principal, and then \editorial 
> or \edmark (or any number of others) as aliases/sugar.

I had also thought of things like that (like \criticalRemark is a 
wrapper/alias around \annotate). But I think that would be confusing. 
The alternative would be to pull together "\edmark gap" to "\gap" etc. 
That would make for nice input - but the major drawback is that we'd 
have maybe two dozen (with the \variants variants) commands with pretty 
generic names ...

Actually I think  \edmark and \edMarkup (or something along these lines) 
might be the best compromise between the generality of the command, 
expressiveness and practicality.

Urs

> Cheers,
> Kieren.
> ________________________________
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: address@hidden