|
From: | Mats Bengtsson |
Subject: | Re: \set vs \override |
Date: | Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:50:18 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) |
/Mats Joe Neeman wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 22:45 +0000, Graham Percival wrote:On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:31:40PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:I don't see a good rationale why \set, \override, \revert, \tweak should not work on the same set of properties (including subproperties). I don't see an explanation why it makes sense to differentiate between them. And I am arrogant enough to believe that if I don't understand a design decision after a few days of trying, it is likely that ultimately a lot of people other than myself will be better off if the distinction gets abolished.I can't speak to the programming side of things, but as an (ex-)user, documentation editor, and upcoming GLISS manager, I would *love* it if we could condense these commands into a single one. (wrapping the revert into something like \override Slur #'direction = #'revert although we'd probably want to choose a different \command to avoid confusion with the old syntax.) However, I'm not at all certain that this would be an easy (or even possible) change.It would certainly be possible, but I think it would be a bad idea. I think that having two separate commands is much clearer than having a command with two distinct behaviours depending on what its argument is. Cheers, Joe _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
-- ============================================= Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing School of Electrical Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: address@hidden WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe =============================================
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |