[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: \set vs \override
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: \set vs \override |
Date: |
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:45:13 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:31:40PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> I don't see a good rationale why \set, \override, \revert, \tweak should
> not work on the same set of properties (including subproperties). I
> don't see an explanation why it makes sense to differentiate between
> them.
>
> And I am arrogant enough to believe that if I don't understand a design
> decision after a few days of trying, it is likely that ultimately a lot
> of people other than myself will be better off if the distinction gets
> abolished.
I can't speak to the programming side of things, but as an
(ex-)user, documentation editor, and upcoming GLISS manager, I
would *love* it if we could condense these commands into a single
one.
(wrapping the revert into something like
\override Slur #'direction = #'revert
although we'd probably want to choose a different \command to
avoid confusion with the old syntax.)
However, I'm not at all certain that this would be an easy (or
even possible) change.
Cheers,
- Graham
- \set vs \override, David Kastrup, 2009/11/21
- Re: \set vs \override, Joe Neeman, 2009/11/21
- Re: \set vs \override, David Kastrup, 2009/11/21
- Re: \set vs \override,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: \set vs \override, David Kastrup, 2009/11/21
- Re: \set vs \override, Joe Neeman, 2009/11/21
- Re: \set vs \override, David Kastrup, 2009/11/22
- Re: \set vs \override, Mats Bengtsson, 2009/11/22
- Re: \set vs \override, David Kastrup, 2009/11/23
- Re: \set vs \override, Mats Bengtsson, 2009/11/23
- Re: \set vs \override, David Kastrup, 2009/11/23
- Re: \set vs \override, Joe Neeman, 2009/11/21
- Re: \set vs \override, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2009/11/22
- Re: \set vs \override, David Kastrup, 2009/11/23