Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[Janek Warchoł]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:01 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> There is a problem with that: in terms of stack operations, \override
> and \revert are not opposing pairs: \override is pop+push (so that
> multiple overrides in a row don't accrue cruft), \revert is pop.  So the
> net effect of this sequence is "pop", while it should be neutral.

This looks strange indeed.
I've skimmed this thread, but haven't found an answer to this
question: would it hurt us really much to have multiple overrides
"accumulate cruft"?  I suppose that in real-life situation there won't
be that much cruft accumulated - but i might be completely wrong.

As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
this doesn't say anything to non-programmers.  To put it differently:
i'd prefer to solve this problem in a way that doesn't require
*creating new push and pop commands*.  But i have no idea if this is
possible.

In other words, we have \override, \tweak, \set, \revert, \unset,
\undo, \single (and maybe more).  It's getting confusing, at least for
me.  I'd prefer to decrease the number of such functions, not increase
them (without deleting functionality, of course).

cheers,
Janek