On 1/1/10 6:13 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes:
>
>> For varying time signatures changes could still
>> be made via \overrideTimeSignatureSettings.
>
> I consider it a grave user interface mistake to have some things work
> only with \overrideTimeSignatureSettings, but not with
> \override timeSignatureSettings.
>
> It is already bad enough that the completely arbitrary keyword/object
> relation override/revert->grob, set/unset->context is demanded from the
> user. Now introducing artificial phrases that use the verb "override"
> for operating on a context property is really going off the deep end.
OK, point taken. I'll come up with a different name for the music function.
Do you have any suggestions?
How about \pushTimeSignatureSetting and \popTimeSignatureSetting?
>
> Why have \overrideTimeSignatureSettings when timeSignatureSettings is
> not to be associated with "override"?
In my defense, it's because timeSignatureSettings is a special case of a
context property that wants \override and \revert behavior.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
