On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:19 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > You are viewing this from the "stack" angle. But that is a complex > view already. The actual user view is > > A. > \override sets a context-specific property value > \revert removes a context-specific property value > This works reliably. If I ever need more complex stuff than that, I can > look it up. > > And to make the "this works reliably" part work, we won't expose any > isolated \temporary \override without matching \revert in LilyPond. >
How do you plan to achieve this? If there are any commands using a \temporary...\revert that spans for more than one timestep, I can always nest them and I can always sneak in \overrides between the \temporary and the \revert, just by putting music in parallel. People have complained about \push/\pop being intolerably > programmer-centric _terminology_, but terminology is cheap. The > underlying fear was "people won't understand what push/pop does", and > that can't be cured by using prettier names but only by not doing > anything hard to understand unless asked for it. > I think stacks are easy to understand, even for non-technical users. The reason for avoiding push/pop is just to stop people from thinking "oh, that's programming, it must be hard." > LilyPond is _complex_, and sometimes one needs that complexity. But we > should try to keep simple things simple, and leave the need to > understand complex behavior for when complex things are required. > While that's true, I think that a coherent and consistent whole is more important than a slightly simpler beginner interface. Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
