Re: indclude notnames bn, etc., in English (issue 133840043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2014/08/26 12:42:17, david.nalesnik wrote:
> why not take
> advantage of the duplication for "c", "d", and the like in
> scm/define-note-names.scm?

Because it makes for an inscrutable and confusing patch/diff as
witnessed by the reviews here.  This should be done cleanly as two
separate commits in order not to confuse the issue of removing the
uncalled-for duplication with providing aliases.

The resulting two commits would serve separate, _identifiable_ purposes.
 Also the duplication happens at a _different_ location than the
original pitch definition.  It makes much more sense moving the gn
definition _right_ next to the g definition so that people reading the
file do not get confused into thinking that gn is the _only_ available
pitch definition because they encounter it alone at some place in the
file.

As a side effect, this reorganization would make the resulting two
commits _independently_ revertable in case this should prove desirable
at some point of time.

So I would strongly urge against "taking advantage" of the existing
problem for mixing its resolution with a different issue better solved
separately.

https://codereview.appspot.com/133840043/