Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> writes: >>> I like the name \temporary. Is this of practical use outside of >>> music functions also? >> >> The main point is to restore to a previous state after a temporary >> override. This is of course also useful in music assigned to music >> variables. In the context of a larger music piece, you can, of >> course, just repeat any previous overrides that you want to see >> reestablished, but this is not cut&paste friendly. > > OK, for music functions and variable assignments. Then, I think, > \temporary is indeed just fine. > >> Maybe \push\override ... but this has the disadvantage that you >> never actively see a \pop. Hm. Maybe we should rename \undo to >> \pop then? > > I think that we either need a consistent use if \push and \pop, or we > should refrain using it. Given that the Scheme functions handling the > stack are not mapped one-to-one to user commands, as you've shown in a > previous mail, I think we should avoid \push and \pop.
The point is that it feels natural to use \push \some-override-sequence \pop \some-override-sequence in pairs, and both \push and \pop could complain if \some-override-sequence contained something unsuitable for complete reversal. And indeed, if I write \omit Accidental cis dis cis dis \pop\omit Accidental this looks ugly and not properly matched, and it _is_ not properly matched. If there was a non-standard stencil set in that context previously, it is gone. So maybe \pop (complemented by \push) is indeed a better name than \undo. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
