[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Overrides and nesting: intentional?

From: Reinhold Kainhofer
Subject: Re: Overrides and nesting: intentional?
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:26:31 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.7.0; i686; ; )

Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 19:08:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Proposal 1: \override should not start with an internal \revert but
> rather do just what the user documentation says: push its own version in
> front of the existing alist of properties, without deleting existing
> overrides.

That's what I would expect, too. 
Of course, then the list of overrides will grow with every override and might 
be quite large for a very long score...

> Obviously, something considered bad will happen, or the code would not
> go to the pains to do what it does now.  What is the bad thing that will
> happen?

I think that only Han-Wen can answer that question. That behavior (revert if 
the music property pop-first ist set) was introduced in between versions 
1.3.109 and 1.3.111 (commit f085824b2182c1f0fa2c5118884770ac7ff775c7 ) in 
November 2000.


Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden,
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 *, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]