Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: > On Mar 27, 2017, at 22:20 , Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> wrote: >> >>> This command can produce either an \override or a \tweak of >>> a spanner property. >> >> But that’s exactly the point: \alterBroken (and \shape and \offset) >> can act _both_ as an override _and_ a tweak, so its syntax must be >> different from either one of these. > > Can we agree that in an ideal world, a command that acts like an > override would look like an override, and a command that acts like a > tweak would look like a tweak?
A command that looks like an override must be hardwired into the parser. I am not really all too eager to try smuggling setter functions returning a music expression into the parser, so this is likely to stay in that manner. It would seem more sensible to change overrides to have tweak syntax and forego the gratuitous equals sign. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
