RE: music function semantics

[James Lowe]

Hello,
________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of Jan Warchoł address@hidden
Sent: 30 July 2011 23:37
To: Carl Sorensen
Cc: David Kastrup; address@hidden
Subject: Re: music function semantics

W dniu 30 lipca 2011 18:18 użytkownik Carl Sorensen
<address@hidden> napisał:
>
> On 7/30/11 9:33 AM, "Jan Warchoł" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> I see...
>> The more i think about it, the more i feel it would be good to merge
>> \set, \override and \tweak into one thingy.  Doing so would make music
>> functions like above one quite simpler.
>
> While I could see that perhaps we could combine \set and \override, we
> cannot combine \tweak.
>
> \override and \set modify everything at the current moment.
>
> \tweak modifies only a single grob.
>
> The distinction between \override and \tweak needs to stay because it is a
> semantic distinction.

Hmm, i'd say that \once \override could work like tweak.  Currently
\once \override affects all objects created at the same moment in
given context, but i think it wouldn't be of much inconvenience if it
affected only a single object, like tweak does.

---------

Then what would be the purpose of \once \override; or is that your point?

I'm not sure that stopping \once \override from affecting all objects at the 
same moment is a good thing. I cannot think of anything immediately, but surely 
\once \override is better than lots of \tweaks - it would certainly make the LP 
code more legible.

Just my tuppence worth.

James