Jan-Peter Voigt <[email protected]> writes: > Hello all, > > I didn't follow the discussions about temporary and push-+-pop. Is there > a simple explanation for the indroduction of \temporary? Why does > \override-\revert now has to be \temporary\override-\revert?
Because it can. If you use \override/\revert as previously, the behavior will be as previously: any previously established layout property in the same context will get lost. > AFAICS it was introduced sometime in the 2.17 development and it will > be for better lilypond-syntax or the like? No, the syntax can't in good conscience be called "better". Only the resulting behavior. There were _very_ heated discussions about this issue and a number of different iterations and proposals. Look them up in the issue tracker. It's the "ugly, but better to have than have not" category. > Am 06.11.2013 10:07, schrieb Johan Vromans: >> For grob properties: >> >> \override pop + push value for prop >> \temporary\override push value for prop >> \revert pop value for prop >> \once\override set (push?) grob prop for next operation, then >> fall back (pop?) to current value -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
