Re: \consists terminology

[David Kastrup]

Aaron Hill <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2018-06-14 23:58, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> 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?

"consists of" and "will include the following as one of many
constituents upon instantiation to be part of its translator group" is
not the same.

> 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.

They are breaking the reserved word conventions.  Even while I want
those to stop being reserved words eventually, they are used in a place
where this kind of music function naming convention would be unusual.

>>> 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.

\with is very extensively used.

\new Voice \where { \accidentalStyle piano } { ... }

is not just a massive change but also a change massively for the worse.

-- 
David Kastrup