RE: Overrides and nesting: intentional?

[James Lowe]

David,

)-----Original Message-----
)From: address@hidden
)[mailto:address@hidden On
)Behalf Of David Kastrup
)Sent: 05 August 2011 17:14
)To: Jan Warchoł
)Cc: address@hidden
)Subject: Re: Overrides and nesting: intentional?
)
)
)Now take that incoherent mess, and add nested properties into it.
)Apparently the current code has no qualms to start an \override with a
)pop that will cancel an entirely unrelated operation.
)
)Now if we do something like (never mind the value and the syntax)
)\override a.b.c  \override a should the second \override be able to cancel
)the first one with its implied \revert at its front?  How about if we do
)\override a  \override a.b.c instead?  Should the second override be able
)to cancel the first one?
)Only partially?  What if we now do
)\override a \override a.b.c \override a
)How many \revert a should we need to have the stack empty again?  If
)we do \override a \override a.b.c \revert a.b.c what should the state of
)a.whatever be?  Changed against before or not?
)What should the state of a.b.c be?  Changed against before (to the value
)set by \override a) or not?
)

What do you think?

Seriously, that is not (meant to be) an impertinent question. You've obviously 
done a lot of thinking about this so why not lay your cards on the table and go 
from there. Take the lead.

I know the discussion is nice and all but it can all get a bit too 
philosophical - paralysis from analysis and all that, too much theory not 
enough practical.

If we're serious about changing/tidying this then why not make a proposal?

Then a real discussion can commence.

James