2009/4/25 Carl D. Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu>: > > > > On 4/25/09 8:24 AM, "Neil Puttock" <n.putt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/4/22 Carl D. Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu>: >> >>> Does this help clarify what I'm thinking? >> >> Yes, thank you. >> >> To be honest, I'm not convinced by the idea of using a fake grob just >> for the convenience of easy overriding and reverting. > > Why would we not want to develop a mechanism that allows the use of standard > LilyPond syntax?
It's not standard syntax for context properties to pretend to be a non-existent grob purely for the purposes of using \override and \revert. > What are the disadvantages you see to this method? None from a practical perspective. I just think all-grob-descriptions should be reserved for real grobs. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
