Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>>> I like the name \temporary.  Is this of practical use outside of
>>> music functions also?
>> 
>> The main point is to restore to a previous state after a temporary
>> override.  This is of course also useful in music assigned to music
>> variables.  In the context of a larger music piece, you can, of
>> course, just repeat any previous overrides that you want to see
>> reestablished, but this is not cut&paste friendly.
>
> OK, for music functions and variable assignments.  Then, I think,
> \temporary is indeed just fine.
>
>> Maybe \push\override ... but this has the disadvantage that you
>> never actively see a \pop.  Hm.  Maybe we should rename \undo to
>> \pop then?
>
> I think that we either need a consistent use if \push and \pop, or we
> should refrain using it.  Given that the Scheme functions handling the
> stack are not mapped one-to-one to user commands, as you've shown in a
> previous mail, I think we should avoid \push and \pop.

The point is that it feels natural to use
\push \some-override-sequence
\pop \some-override-sequence
in pairs, and both \push and \pop could complain if
\some-override-sequence contained something unsuitable for complete
reversal.

And indeed, if I write

\omit Accidental
cis dis cis dis
\pop\omit Accidental

this looks ugly and not properly matched, and it _is_ not properly
matched.  If there was a non-standard stencil set in that context
previously, it is gone.

So maybe \pop (complemented by \push) is indeed a better name than
\undo.

-- 
David Kastrup