> On Apr 30, 2015, at 03:16 , David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: > >> On Apr 26, 2015, at 16:04 , David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> But that does not happen. One could argue that this may be a bug, >>> and that every context in the current parentage that considers itself >>> "Bottom" should be affected by Bottom overrides. >> >> The idea of multiple Bottoms in a hierarchy is bizarre. > > I am not interested in bizarre or not. The question is whether it is > consistent and/or useful. "Bottom" is just a name, and its principal > implication is "no implicit context creation beyond this point". Now > what is useful?
We’re talking a lot about \override Bottom.Grob.property, but wouldn’t we rather have \override Grob.property do what we want on its own? What if we defined \override Grob.property as addressing the nearest enclosing context named “”, and aliased all contexts except part/sub-voice to “”. (Maybe I’ll try that tonight and see what happens.) — Dan _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
