Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:31:40PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> I don't see a good rationale why \set, \override, \revert, \tweak should >> not work on the same set of properties (including subproperties). I >> don't see an explanation why it makes sense to differentiate between >> them. >> >> And I am arrogant enough to believe that if I don't understand a design >> decision after a few days of trying, it is likely that ultimately a lot >> of people other than myself will be better off if the distinction gets >> abolished. > > I can't speak to the programming side of things, but as an > (ex-)user, documentation editor, and upcoming GLISS manager, I > would *love* it if we could condense these commands into a single > one.
I don't think that is necessary, they do different things after all (an \override can be reverted, a \set not, a \tweak works just on a single item rather than at a single moment like \once\override does). What I don't understand is why they are supposed to do this to only to specific classes of properties. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
