Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[Werner LEMBERG]

> [...] 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.

But `push' means `to put something on the stack'.  Having

  \omit Accidental

however, does exactly the opposite, this is, it *removes* something
(well, it pushes the `omit' property, so to say, but this can become
very irritating if it gets more complicated).  For this particular
reason I prefer \undo for the example you've given above.

I get the feeling that we have to completely reconsider how \set,
\revert, and friends are named and used.  Your clean-ups and
reorganization of the syntax reveal more and more inconsistencies, and
my head starts aching if I think of \once, \undo, and so on.

Maybe it makes sense to map the corresponding Scheme functions anew to
`simpler' lilypond commands which do less but in a more consistent
manner.


    Werner