Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > I have received unambiguous guidance from Han-Wen that I should *not* > add a general capability for doing override/revert for context > properties, even though that's what you want to be able to do. > > I've asked for suggestions for a music function name that would > accomplish the desired behavior for timeSignatureSettings. You have > given me no suggestions.
Correct. > I've proposed a couple of different names, both of which you have > indicated are unacceptable, and the only thing that is acceptable is > to have \override and \revert work for context properties. I have explicated in what respects your suggestions are just pasting over the existing user interface design problem. Having accessor functions \overrideTimeSignatureSettings and \revertTimeSignatureSettings is putting lipstick on a pig. But if we only _have_ a pig when running for the miss elections, our best option might be the lipstick. You are the visagist for this task, and I don't envy you the task. You are probably best off using \overrideXXX and \revertXXX for what should be \override XXX and \revert XXX in a better world: while it is utterly unfathomable to the user why he should _write_ those, at least he will be able to guess when _reading_ them that their meaning is what \override XXX and \revert XXX should have been in the first place. Pointing out the problems with this (and other name choices) is not criticism addressed at you since I consider it perfectly reasonable for you to let Han-Wen set the technical framework for you. It is addressed at Han-Wen to point out the consequences of his decisions for you and Lilypond users. You are doing a perfect job considering the constraints you have to meet. I consider the constraints unwise, not how you are trying to meet them. So no, I have no useful advice to _you_, and it was probably impolite to sort of unask your question by explaining why this question should not be there in the first place. It might have kept others from answering your question, the question I feel that is the wrong one to answer but for which you don't have the option of not answering it. I apologize for that. I think that nothing will be gained by trying to coin different verbs in compound music function names that do quite the same job as \revert and \override, but on context properties. Among the options _you_ have, \revertXXX appears to make the most sense. Coining new command name components for the same basic functionality is not going to do anything to make things simpler for the average user. So you might as well use "override" and "revert" as music function name building blocks here. > Please not[e] that I'm not trying to ignore you. I'm just not going > to go against Han-Wen's decision. Understood. I am more interested in making Han-Wen go against Han-Wen's decision, anyway. All the best. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
