"Trevor Daniels" <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote Sunday, August 14, 2011 8:11 PM > > >> "Trevor Daniels" <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> I think we need to clarify a few things first. >>> >>> You wrote >>> >>>> I have no clear view about \set yet. It would seem to me that >>>> \unset >>>> should be equivalent to \revert, and \set should be equivalent to >>>> \revert+\override. >>> >>> As we are contemplating a major change anyway, I'd >>> prefer an equivalence in operation of \override, >>> \once \override and \revert with \set, \once \set >>> and \unset. Or is this infeasible? >> >> A sequence of \set \set \set would lead to stack buildup. That >> seems >> contrary to the spirit of the command name. >> >> On the other hand, a sequence of \set \unset will, under my proposal >> which is pretty much the current semantics, cancel a previous >> override, >> while a sequence \override \set \set \set \revert will be neutral, >> all-in-all. > > Now I am confused. Are you saying that \set will > operate on grob properties rather than or in addition > to operating on context properties? That would be > a major change!
I am talking about context properties exclusively. grob properties are basically just copies of context properties at a certain point of time (the initial, immutable grob properties at least, and the mutable being per-grob only anyway and not subject to context scoping), and thus are not concerned with all the scoping mess as far as I can tell, nor with overrides and reverts and once. They just take a snapshot of the context property when created, and work from there. As far as I understand. Which may not be all that far since I get my knowledge from hearsay and from analyzing the code bottom-up (and not having reached the top yet). -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
