Sure.
Here’s an event.
e = (degree: 0);
Now: What does degree mean?
Most of us probably say that it means the root note of the scale.
But what if I’ve created an event type that sets drawing parameters for a UserView, and degree indicates rotation? This is a valid usage – it’s a critical part of the event system that it should be completely user-definable. Nothing in the default event prototype is mandatory.
This means that the data in an event quite literally have no meaning at all until they are interpreted by the event type. An event is just a collection of arbitrary data, until the moment that it’s played.
From this perspective, it’s conceptually muddled to bind the act of populating data to a specific interpretation of the data (Pbind(NoteEvent(...))). Pbind only prepares data. Pbind should not in any way, shape or form assign meaning to the data. (You could say that \type, \note already assigns meaning but I could replace the default event prototype with a different prototype, with a different event type system, which is quite different from hard-binding it to an object.)
But the core of my skepticism is this: The problem is in the help system. All of this seeks to avoid fixing the problem in the help system. It’s like, I hit my head but asked the doctor to put my arm in a cast. Fix the problem where the problem is. (If people are frightened of doing dev work on SCDoc, this is understandable but it does not in any way invalidate the idea that it’s better to fix the problem where the problem is.)
hjh