Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Uh, that is because they are a plastic visualization here?
>
>> Lately, I have seen many suggestions that would turn lilypond more
>> into a programming language and away from being a description of
>> music.
>
> Reality check: LilyPond already _has_ stacks for properties.  Nobody
> forces you to use any of the new commands if you don't care for stuff
> working in a better organized manner than flat variables would give
> you.

One can call \push and \pop instead \temporary and \undo, but who are
you going to do a favor with that?

-- 
David Kastrup