Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes:
>> 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.)
That sounds like a recipe for disaster in connection with implicit
context creation since an \override does _not_ create implicit contexts
_unless_ it is needed for the override to succeed.
So if you do things like
\new Staff { \voiceOne c d \oneVoice ...
then \oneVoice will no longer be able to cancel \voiceOne (with respect
to other voices) since \voiceOne will have registered at Staff level.
So a \new Voice { ... } will still be under the influence of \voiceOne.
That's _not_ what I call useful.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
