Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

On 2012-10-13 09:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:>> 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.

To me it is not only this inconsitency, but rather that the names 
push/pop come from programming languages and concepts.
Lately, I have seen many suggestions that would turn lilypond more into 
a programming language and away from being a description of music. Now, 
while lilypond really is a programming language, in the past we have 
tried to hide the concepts (e.g. queue theory) from the user, with more 
or less success.

David's attempts to get rid of the #' in propery names is a great step 
in this direction, but using push/pop would be a huge step in the wrong 
direction, IMO.

Cheers,
Reinhold


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://www.kainhofer.com
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * Edition Kainhofer, Music Publisher, http://www.edition-kainhofer.com