Re: Nested context properties -- an implementation sketch

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, August 14, 2011 8:11 PM
>
>
>> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> I think we need to clarify a few things first.
>>>
>>> You wrote
>>>
>>>> I have no clear view about \set yet.  It would seem to me that
>>>> \unset
>>>> should be equivalent to \revert, and \set should be equivalent to
>>>> \revert+\override.
>>>
>>> As we are contemplating a major change anyway, I'd
>>> prefer an equivalence in operation of \override,
>>> \once \override and \revert with \set, \once \set
>>> and \unset.  Or is this infeasible?
>>
>> A sequence of \set \set \set would lead to stack buildup.  That
>> seems
>> contrary to the spirit of the command name.
>>
>> On the other hand, a sequence of \set \unset will, under my proposal
>> which is pretty much the current semantics, cancel a previous
>> override,
>> while a sequence \override \set \set \set \revert will be neutral,
>> all-in-all.
>
> Now I am confused.  Are you saying that \set will
> operate on grob properties rather than or in addition
> to operating on context properties?  That would be
> a major change!

I am talking about context properties exclusively.  grob properties are
basically just copies of context properties at a certain point of time
(the initial, immutable grob properties at least, and the mutable being
per-grob only anyway and not subject to context scoping), and thus are
not concerned with all the scoping mess as far as I can tell, nor with
overrides and reverts and once.  They just take a snapshot of the
context property when created, and work from there.

As far as I understand.  Which may not be all that far since I get my
knowledge from hearsay and from analyzing the code bottom-up (and not
having reached the top yet).

-- 
David Kastrup