Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>> [...] 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

Uh no, it doesn't.  It pushed a ##f property to the stack of
Accidental.stencil.

> (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.

Well, at least the \grob/\on/\tweakGrob things are tabled again.
Changing \override Accidental color = #red to
\override Accidental.color = #red and related changes make _those_
abominations redundant.

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

\once \push \pop \tweak \single _are_ rather minimal and do a single job
each.  \once changes overriding music into a push/pop pair, \push into
push sequences, \pop into pop sequences, \tweak directly manipulates a
grob, \single converts overriding music into a \tweak.

The rest is tabled after discussion.  \omit can be either tweak or
override, depending on its last argument, same with \hide, same with
\footnote.  Just because this is a long discussion covering a lot of
ground (and throwing stuff out again) does not mean that the _results_
are bad.

-- 
David Kastrup