Re: \consists terminology

[Aaron Hill]

On 2018-06-15 03:29, David Kastrup wrote:
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 1:42 AM David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Sorry, this is not going at all in the direction you were aiming for
> > > but from a purely technical standpoint getting rid of \remove would
> > > be a much more worthwhile target than junking \consists , and
> > > \unconsists or something of similar awkwardness would be a lot less
> > > problematic as a newcomer than something as generic as \add .
> >
> > Quite the contrary. This is helping to elucidate what's actually going
> > on, and I suspect a more descriptive terminology may result.
>
> The less descriptive terminology has the advantage that it does not 
> come
> as preloaded with precise but incorrect preconceptions.

<sarcasm>Why not call it `\xyzzy` then?</sarcasm>

I would debate that preconceptions are the lesser evil when stacked up 
against the potential of undescriptive and/or misleading terms.  If the 
terminology is not clear enough, then it is significantly harder to 
correct or override a preconception.  Of course, we should avoid 
cluttering the user experience with all of the gory details of the 
underlying mechanisms; but if folks are uncomfortable with the casual 
reading of `\consists`, then it would seem that it is a poor word choice 
indeed.

It truly is a shame that `\with` is already used, as the pair of `\with` 
and `\without` could be a great way to succinctly state the relationship 
in this scenario.  Perhaps `\including` and `\excluding` could work, but 
then...

`\consists` seems to imply aggregation or possibly even containment.  
This sounds like one of the incorrect preconceptions we are wanting to 
avoid, since it is my understanding that the associated engravers, et 
al. are *not* to be considered an element of the context that 
`\consists` them.  Rather, they co-exist and work along side during the 
process.  So, `\including` might even be overstating the relationship 
here.  (Mind you, the confusion between `\including` and `\include` 
would be more than enough to disqualify it anyway.)

Could `\recognizes` and `\ignores` work?  These words, again, do not 
imply any form of ownership, rather are hinting more at some form of 
permission, granting a translator to do its work within that context.  I 
would have suggested `\allows` and `\denies` as simpler words, but the 
latter already exists along with its pair `\accepts`.  Oh, but now a 
crazy thought... Could overloading those existing terms work?  That is, 
would LilyPond be able to tell the difference between `\accepts 
"SomeContext"` vs. `\accepts "SomeEngraver"`?  If so, then we could 
potentially throw away both `\consists` and `\remove`.

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`.

-- Aaron Hill