Mats Bengtsson <mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> We used to have the same command for setting both context and object
>>> properties, see
>>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.2/Documentation/topdocs/out-www/NEWS.html
>>>
>>
>> I read
>>
>> The syntax for setting properties has been simplified: the following
>> table lists the differences:
>>
>> (old) (new)
>>
>> \property A.B = #C \set A.B = #C
>> \property A.B \unset \unset A.B
>> \property A.B \set #C = #D \override A.B #C = #D
>> \property A.B \override #C = #D (removed)
>> \property A.B \revert #C \revert A.B #C
>> There is no differentiation between "context" and "object"
>> properties
>> here.
>>
> Of course there is! The \property A.B = #C syntax was used for context
> properties (called "translation properties" in the 2.0 documentation)
> whereas the \property A.B {\set,\override} #C = #D was used for object
> properties (called "layout properties" in the 2.0 documentation). See
> for example
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.0/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/Tuning-output.html#Tuning-output
> which explicitly states that you should not confuse layout properties
> with translation properties.
Sigh. Sure. It tells
Do not confuse layout properties with translation
properties. Translation properties always use a mixed caps style
naming, and are manipulated using \property:
\property Context.propertyName = value
Layout properties are use Scheme style variable naming, i.e. lower
case words separated with dashes. They are symbols, and should
always be quoted using #'.
But that tells nothing about the actual difference. It just tells you
that they have different naming conventions and should be manipulated
using different commands.
But WHY?!?!?!?!?!
> In
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-10/msg00195.html
> you can find an attempt I did at that time to introduce the different
> kinds of properties and how to set them.
Again, this lists different properties but does not mention at _all_ why
one would want to have different commands for setting different
properties.
> I share your concerns that there's no clear-cut distinction between
> what is handled by layout properties and and what's handled by context
> properties, but it used to be much worse in old LilyPond versions,
> where we had more context properties that de facto dealt with only one
> particular layout object.
But why different commands for setting properties? I don't use
different commands for setting array values depending on what I am going
to use the array for. I don't use different commands for setting list
values depending on what I am going to use the list for.
Why for properties? The sort of "oh, it works anyway if you ignore the
classification (perhaps with a warning), but that's being naughty".
What is the point behind enforcing some discipline that apparently does
not a have a coherent reason that could be explained in one or several
dozen sentences?
I don't get it. And the more answers I get that don't address my
question, the more suspicious I grow that there is no actual point.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
