Re: Context.Grob considered as symbol list

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>>> Would it be possible to have
>>>
>>>   \override Accidental.color #red
>>>   \override Voice.Accidental.color
>>>
>>> ?  For me, this feels most natural.
>> 
>> Won't work since you can't distinguish
>> \override Voice.Accidental.color
>> 
>> from
>> 
>> \override Accidental.bound-details.left
>> 
>> and I really don't want to try picking this apart based on
>> uppercase/lowercase letter distinctions.
>
> In other words, `.' is used for two different purposes, namely to
> indicate hierarchy of Contexts and accessing properties of grobs.

No, it is used for tying several symbols into one list.  \override takes
one list for specifying the grob, and one list for specifying the
property/subproperty of the grob.

\tweak takes just a single list for specifying the property, but that
list may include a grob at its start.

It's just that the lists for \override and \tweak are structured
differently when \tweak takes an optional grob specification.  But the
purpose of '.' is the same in each case.

> What about to disunify these two purposes, introducing a different
> symbol?  Something like
>
>   \override Voice>Accidental.color
>   \override Accidental.bound-details.left

That does not map to anything useful at the Scheme level.  Nor does it
map to any useful concept.

-- 
David Kastrup