Hi, On 2013/04/21 08:23:34, dak wrote: > Janek Warchoł <mailto:janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > > > 2013/4/16 <d...@gnu.org>: > >> Uh, a call of offset can be followed by music quite naturally. So this > >> is not just a "technical restriction". It is one of logic. > > > > So, do i understand correctly that \offset could have a syntax like > > > > \offset grob-property-path value music > > > > And then, if grob-property-path contained only property, > > the function would be used as a tweak (with "music" being > > what's tweaked), and if the function was being used as an > > override (grob-property-path contains a grobname), "music" > > would be sort-of-unused? > > Possible, but "sort-of-unused" is not a reasonable interface.
Hmm. What do you suggest then? It's not doing us good when user interfaces for different functions don't have a common specification wrt/ argument order. I'm pretty sure that this will increase the confusion among users (that's not an argument to reject patch adding \offset - it's now a general question). Do you see any reasonable strategies for solving this? (as you know, my ultimate goal is merging as many modifying commands, e.g. merging \set and \override - but i'm not trying to suggest any solutions, because i have no expertise in this area, just some expectations). best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
