|
From: | Aaron Hill |
Subject: | Re: \consists terminology |
Date: | Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:38:18 -0700 |
User-agent: | Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 |
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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |