Re: Context.Grob considered as symbol list

[David Kastrup]

Keith OHara <address@hidden> writes:

> Werner LEMBERG <wl <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Instead of having an optional argument 
>
> Remember that David's previous approach used no optional arguments,
> the optional components were attached with dots to the core arguments
>   
>   \override [Context.]Grob property[.subproperty] = #value
>   \tweak [Grob.]property.[subproperty] value c2
>
>> I would prefer that both commands simply accept such
>> a hierarchy, making e.g.
>> 
>>   \override color ...
>>   \override Accidental.color ...
>>   \override Voice.Accidental.color ...
>> 
>> and
>> 
>>   \tweak color ...
>>   \tweak Accidental.color ...
>>   \tweak Voice.Accidental.color ...
>> 
>> valid syntax
>
> Remember that by far the most common cases use no optional components,
> thus no dots in the old syntax.  Also remember that 
>  \override color = #blue
> will not do anything useful even if it is valid syntax. (David's latest 
> patch prints a reasonable message for the error above, before
> crashing.)

Aborting with an error message?  I am actually not all too sure.  At
some point of time I ran out of steam accommodating the never satisfied.

> I would prefer to keep David's previous syntax in documentation, even
> if we accept the fully-dotted form, because the space helps me find my
> way when copying new forms from the manuals.
>
>   \override Ceol.Clochan dath.mion = #glas
>
> I forget a lot, but am reminded seeing the above that \override always
> takes a grob (sometimes with context to its left) and the property
> (rarely with sub-properties to its right).

I suggest that you then take responsibility for your side in the
shouting match.  It would certainly simplify both code and concept (as
witnessed by me taking almost a week, admittedly while other work of
mine was being shouted down in parallel, just for coming up with a still
faulty implementation), but that has never been a strong reason here.

-- 
David Kastrup