Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
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
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:26 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
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
Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
But now that we are giving a hook into push, I think that the
non-pushing default of override will cause problems.
I consider it utterly ludicrous that the mere availability of \temporary
will magically cause problems with the existing usage of \override,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
But now that we are giving a hook into push, I think that the
non-pushing default of override will cause problems.
I consider it utterly ludicrous that the mere availability of
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
/oneMoment (equivalent to /once, but perhaps a more clear name) modifies a
property in the current context for one musical moment. Once the musical
moment has passed, the changes introduced by the /oneMoment evaporate.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:19 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
A.
\override does a pop/push
\revert does a pop
\temporary\override does a push.
so \temporary\override and \revert are a matching pair.
More importantly: on an empty
Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
Ok, that's a good point. It still seems a little strange to me,
though, that
\undo\override Something #'color = #red
will actually reverse the effect of
\override Something #'color = #green
There is not really a point in using \undo on single
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at writes:
On 2012-10-13 23:29, David Kastrup wrote:
If you are referring to Werner's and Reinhold's comments, I think you
may not be reading them as the authors intended. In particular, I
believe that Reinhold was merely objecting to the names push
Joe Neeman wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:14 AM
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
\override overwrites the last definition
\revert throws it away/reestablishes the previous if not overwritten.
In other words, we have a pop-push and a pop. In the
Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
In other words, we have a pop-push and a pop. In the context of
Reinhold's email, you were suggesting (although perhaps not seriously)
adding a push. Now, I'm happy to have push and pop, but I think
pop-push is a bad interface for a stack.
It is not
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Joe Neeman wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:14 AM
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
\override overwrites the last definition
\revert throws it away/reestablishes the previous if not overwritten.
In other
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 9:21 AM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Joe Neeman wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:14 AM
In other words, we have a pop-push and a pop. In the context of
Reinhold's email, you were suggesting (although perhaps not seriously)
James, you wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:05 AM
I have a patch coming that is trying to at least document \single
\hide and \omit.
Fine - \hide and \omit are quite straightforward.
i also have started to use \single to take the opportunity to better
organize NR 5.3.
Hhm. This section
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 9:21 AM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
I would be happier with this change. Why not just change the action
of \override to be push alone? As its current implementation pretty
well
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
James, you wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:05 AM
I have a patch coming that is trying to at least document \single
\hide and \omit.
Fine - \hide and \omit are quite straightforward.
i also have started to use \single to take the opportunity
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:56 AM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 9:21 AM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
I would be happier with this change. Why not just change the action
of \override to be
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
A.
\override does a pop/push
\revert does a pop
\temporary\override does a push.
so \temporary\override and \revert are a matching pair.
More importantly: on an empty stack, any number of \override followed by
\revert are a matching pair.
B
Two years ago, David and I had a discussion about the existence of /tweak,
/set, and /override. David pointed out the confusing nature of the
different ways of changing properties, and the difficulty of explaining
this to the user.
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
Two years ago, David and I had a discussion about the existence of /tweak,
/set, and /override.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-06/msg00054.html
Perhaps now David has put together enough
Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes:
Two years ago, David and I had a discussion about the existence of /tweak,
/set, and /override. David pointed out the confusing nature of the
different ways of changing properties, and the difficulty of explaining
this to the user.
On 14/10/2012 17:46, Janek Warchoł wrote:
As for (2), i see that there are three operations that can be
performed on stack: push, pop and clear.
Please, can we get away from thinking in terms of implementation details
and instead think of the use cases:
1) Just set a property (grob or context
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
Sorry, Reinhold - forgot to send to all..
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer
reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
On 14/10/2012 17:46, Janek Warchoł wrote:
As for (2), i see that there are three operations that can be
performed on stack: push, pop and clear.
Please, can we get away
- Original Message -
From: Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu
To: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece
Perhaps now David has put together
On 10/14/2012 07:36 PM, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Please, can we get away from thinking in terms of implementation details
and instead think of the use cases:
1) Just set a property (grob or context property) to a certain value,
don't worry about previous values
2) Set a property
2012/10/13 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
In ly/music-functions-init.ly I see code like the following:
crossStaff =
#(define-music-function (parser location notes) (ly:music?)
(_i Create cross-staff stems)
#{
\override Stem #'cross-staff = #cross-staff-connect
\override Flag #'style
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
So we need something like
crossStaff =
#(define-music-function (parser location notes) (ly:music?)
(_i Create cross-staff stems)
#{
\temporary\override Stem #'cross-staff = #cross-staff-connect
\temporary\override Flag #'style = #'no-flag
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
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org 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
David Kastrup wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:01 AM
In ly/music-functions-init.ly I see code like the following:
crossStaff =
#(define-music-function (parser location notes) (ly:music?)
(_i Create cross-staff stems)
#{
\override Stem #'cross-staff = #cross-staff-connect
\override
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:01 AM
In ly/music-functions-init.ly I see code like the following:
crossStaff =
#(define-music-function (parser location notes) (ly:music?)
(_i Create cross-staff stems)
#{
\override Stem
[...] 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
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
[...] 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
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
Surely this points to the pop operation in \override as being at
fault? If \override was simply push, rather than pop-push then the
code above would seem to work as intended.
Sure. The idea presumably was not to have stack buildup from things
like
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
Surely this points to the pop operation in \override as being at
fault? If \override was simply push, rather than pop-push then the
code above would seem to work as intended.
Sure. The idea presumably was not to
On 2012-10-13 09:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote: 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
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com writes:
Buildup of unwanted data or no, it would be useful to be able to write
something like
\toLast Accidental #'color
to restore the previous override
But which is the previous
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at writes:
On 2012-10-13 09:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote: 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
David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com writes:
Buildup of unwanted data or no, it would be useful to be able to write
something like
\toLast Accidental #'color
to restore
David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
[...]
\override Accidental color = #green
\override Accidental color = #red
\push\override Accidental color = #blue
[...]
\revert Accidental color
or, if you prefer
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:01 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
There is a problem with that: in terms of stack operations, \override
and \revert are not opposing pairs: \override is pop+push (so that
multiple overrides in a row don't accrue
Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM
As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
this doesn't say anything to non-programmers. To put it differently:
i'd prefer to solve this problem in a way that doesn't require
*creating new push and pop
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM
As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
this doesn't say anything to non-programmers. To put it differently:
i'd prefer to solve this problem in a way that doesn't
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
It would appear that this behavior was implemented in lily/parser.yy with
commit 39dd20959c8b3a143cfe41138a5c62749da54079
Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys han...@xs4all.nl
Date: Mon Oct 17 00:04:45 2005 +
* input/regression/override-nest.ly: new file.
David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM
As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
this doesn't say anything to non-programmers. To put it
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM
As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
this doesn't say
On 12-10-13 10:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David, you wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:26 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Plus \once and now \temporary. I agree this menagerie is going to be
far more confusing to users than
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Trevor Daniels t.daniels at treda.co.uk writes:
I don't understand. Are you suggesting we should not document
these new functions? If so, what is the set of commands which
should be documented?
I am not suggesting that. But there is public
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Trevor Daniels t.daniels at treda.co.uk writes:
I don't understand. Are you suggesting we should not document
these new functions? If so, what is the set of commands which
should be documented?
I am not
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
I looked for a case in my scores where I wanted a stack, where I wanted to
temporarily override something that I had already overridden, and then put
back my first override. I did not find any.
I love having the ability to write a music function that
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
would it hurt us really much to have multiple overrides
accumulate cruft? I suppose that in real-life situation there won't
be that much cruft accumulated - but i might be
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
would it hurt us really much to have multiple overrides
accumulate cruft? I suppose that in real-life situation there won't
be
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
No. I am just pissed at the people clamoring for more ignorance, more
bugs, and less control.
If you are referring to Werner's and Reinhold's comments, I think you may
not be reading them as the authors intended. In
Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
No. I am just pissed at the people clamoring for more ignorance,
more
bugs, and less control.
If you are referring to Werner's and Reinhold's comments,
On 2012-10-13 23:29, David Kastrup wrote:
If you are referring to Werner's and Reinhold's comments, I think you
may not be reading them as the authors intended. In particular, I
believe that Reinhold was merely objecting to the names push and
pop as being opaque to non-programmers,
To me
David Kastrup wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:29 PM
I wrote
Plus \once and now \temporary. I agree this menagerie is going to
be far more confusing to users than the occasional unexpected result
after calling \crossStaff or \harmonicByFret - which no one has ever
noticed.
I completely agree that we need a function that changes a property
in a non-destructive way.
Me too, in case there was ever a doubt about this.
If we were to completely re-design the lilypond language, I would
suggest \override, \revert and \clear (as push, pop and clear
stack), but they
Trevor
On 13 October 2012 23:56, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:29 PM
I wrote
Plus \once and now \temporary. I agree this menagerie is going to
be far more confusing to users than the occasional unexpected result
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
No. I am just pissed at the people clamoring for more ignorance,
more
bugs, and less
In ly/music-functions-init.ly I see code like the following:
crossStaff =
#(define-music-function (parser location notes) (ly:music?)
(_i Create cross-staff stems)
#{
\override Stem #'cross-staff = #cross-staff-connect
\override Flag #'style = #'no-flag
$notes
\revert Stem
61 matches
Mail list logo
