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 the Scheme functions handling the
> stack are not mapped one-to-one to user commands, as you've shown in a
> previous mail, I think we should avoid \push and \pop.
To me it is not only this inconsitency, but rather that the names
push/pop come from programming languages and concepts.
Lately, I have seen many suggestions that would turn lilypond more into
a programming language and away from being a description of music. Now,
while lilypond really is a programming language, in the past we have
tried to hide the concepts (e.g. queue theory) from the user, with more
or less success.
David's attempts to get rid of the #' in propery names is a great step
in this direction, but using push/pop would be a huge step in the wrong
direction, IMO.
Cheers,
Reinhold
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://www.kainhofer.com
* Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
* http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
* Edition Kainhofer, Music Publisher, http://www.edition-kainhofer.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
