On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:19 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: > > > A. > > \override does a pop/push > > \revert does a pop > > \temporary\override does a push. > > > > so \temporary\override and \revert are a matching pair. > > More importantly: on an empty stack, any number of \override followed by > \revert are a matching "pair". > > > B > > \override does a push > > \revert does a pop > > \clear restores the stack to the default state. > > > > so \override and \revert are a matching pair. > > > > Both of these are essentially equivalent, except A does not have a stack > > clear operation, but which of these is the clearer, and which the more > > intuitive? > > You are viewing this from the "stack" angle. But that is a complex > view already.
I disagree with this point. I suspect that many of our users are familiar with word processors (probably more so than me) and are perfectly comfortable with the "undo" stack. I don't see why an override stack is more complicated. > The actual user view is > > A. > \override sets a context-specific property value > \revert removes a context-specific property value > This works reliably. If I ever need more complex stuff than that, I can > look it up. > I don't find this much more complex: \override sets a context-specific property value \revert undoes the last \override \reset (or whatever) restores lilypond's default. And to make the "this works reliably" part work, we won't expose any > isolated \temporary \override without matching \revert in LilyPond. > As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't see how this is possible to achieve given that we support simultaneous music. > > People have complained about \push/\pop being intolerably > programmer-centric _terminology_, but terminology is cheap. The > underlying fear was "people won't understand what push/pop does" That wasn't my underlying fear. My fear is that users will hear "push" and "pop," think that they mean something complicated, and turn off their brains. Anyway, I don't want you to interpret this argument as being against your patch per se; obviously, it fixes a bunch of real bugs and that's great. Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
