> [...] 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.
But `push' means `to put something on the stack'. Having
\omit Accidental
however, does exactly the opposite, this is, it *removes* something
(well, it pushes the `omit' property, so to say, but this can become
very irritating if it gets more complicated). For this particular
reason I prefer \undo for the example you've given above.
I get the feeling that we have to completely reconsider how \set,
\revert, and friends are named and used. Your clean-ups and
reorganization of the syntax reveal more and more inconsistencies, and
my head starts aching if I think of \once, \undo, and so on.
Maybe it makes sense to map the corresponding Scheme functions anew to
`simpler' lilypond commands which do less but in a more consistent
manner.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
