Re: Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

[Urs Liska]

Am 14. Juni 2018 15:16:58 MESZ schrieb Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden>:
>Hi Urs,
>
>1. I think \variants is good. The fact that \choice matches MEI is its
>only true advantage over \variants (IMO).
>

And not even a strong one. If it's for the conversion and *only* the name it's 
trivial to handle.


>2. I agree that \edit doesn’t immediately seem optimal. The same
>problems, I think, plague \option. I considered \variant [singular],
>which works well (IMO) except for the obvious command similarity issue
>(likely leading to typos and potential reader confusion. I'll keep
>thinking on it and get back to you if I stumble on something superior.

\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.

\editorial gap { S2 }

might be something I could become friends with.


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