On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 1:14 PM David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 8:56 PM David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > This currently compiles without warnings. > >> > > >> > ``` > >> > \version "2.25.30" > >> > \new Voice \with { > >> > \propertySet Staff.instrumentName "Quack" > >> > } { > >> > \contextPropertyCheck Staff.instrumentName #'() > >> > \contextPropertyCheck Voice.instrumentName "Quack" > >> > R1 > >> > } > >> > ``` > >> > > >> > It seems wrong to set the property in Voice quietly when the user > >> > wrote "Staff". > >> > >> Why? If the user puts a setting that is normally Staff-wide (like > >> \ottava #1) in a \with-block of a Voice, why would you assume that they > >> don't know what they are doing? > >> > > > > To me as an experienced user who has not followed the evolution of the > > usage of \with blocks, it seems a bit surprising that after explicitly > > requesting the Staff.instrumentName property to be changed, the > > Voice.instrumentName property is what is actually changed. > > There is no difference between "explicitly requested" and "implicitly > requested" in the form of predefined commands to LilyPond. > > The current behavior was a design decision along with the implementation > of allowing property-setting music in \with-blocks to be converted. > > We actually went through all this once already including actual code, > and the results were unhelpful. > > Please check > > <https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/2982> > Sorry about the noise. I agree with your conclusion. Thanks, Carl
