Re: \consists terminology

[Aaron Hill]

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?

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.

> > 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.

-- Aaron Hill