Closed uliska closed 6 years ago
We cannot directly define a command and an environment with the same name (look at the code at the end of lyluatex.sty) ; so in any case, we would have to define them first, then assign the name lilypond
. The "temporary" names could be internal macros (ly@something
) ; but as they already exist and could be used in existing documents, I don't think it's necessary to change them.
OK, I see. But then I'd say we should basically use the lilypond-book like names exclusively in the documentation.
we should basically use the lilypond-book like names exclusively in the documentation.
I agree for the user docs, but I think we should suggest \lily
and ly
for package authors.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why do we have to use our "private" command/environment names (
\lily
,ly
,\inlcudely
) instead of directly using those fromlilypond-book
(\lilypond
,lilypond
,\lilypondfile
)?Wouldn't it be much better to simply reuse these names from
lilypond-book
? I find them very telling, and I don't see the reason to deviate from them and create an additional compatibility layer.If compatibility with existing documents is the reason, are there really that many already out there in the wild (I mean, even in
test.tex
we use\lilypondfile
)? And if so I would at least suggest to invert the situation, make thelilypond-book
names the default and create aliases for the others.