On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 22:45 +0000, Graham Percival wrote: > 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. > (wrapping the revert into something like > \override Slur #'direction = #'revert > although we'd probably want to choose a different \command to > avoid confusion with the old syntax.) > > However, I'm not at all certain that this would be an easy (or > even possible) change.
It would certainly be possible, but I think it would be a bad idea. I think that having two separate commands is much clearer than having a command with two distinct behaviours depending on what its argument is. Cheers, Joe _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
