Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:01 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> There is a problem with that: in terms of stack operations, \override
>> and \revert are not opposing pairs: \override is pop+push (so that
>> multiple overrides in a row don't accrue cruft), \revert is pop.  So the
>> net effect of this sequence is "pop", while it should be neutral.
>
> This looks strange indeed.
> I've skimmed this thread, but haven't found an answer to this
> question: would it hurt us really much to have multiple overrides
> "accumulate cruft"?  I suppose that in real-life situation there won't
> be that much cruft accumulated - but i might be completely wrong.

\voiceTwo \voiceOne \oneVoice

Would you expect that after this sequence, the state is like just after
\voiceTwo?

> In other words, we have \override, \tweak, \set, \revert, \unset,
> \undo, \single (and maybe more).  It's getting confusing, at least for
> me.  I'd prefer to decrease the number of such functions, not increase
> them (without deleting functionality, of course).

You can't call functionality without an interface.  A prefix like
\temporary is better than a full new interface.

It's really totally unrewarding to do this kind of work.  Instead of
"Great, finally we get a tool for doing x in a straightforward way",
everybody is always hollering "oh no, not another tool.  Can't we just
live with the deficient state?"

Have you ever tried working with a combined hammer, tongs, screwdriver,
drill multi-tool?  If you have, you'd value a clean, sorted toolbox with
simple and separate tools that all do just one job, and do it well.

Again: if you don't _care_ about breaking things, then _don't_ learn how
to avoid it, and you will be just fine.

Me, I am annoyed at broken things.  So I want to have the tools
available that help me deal with that.  But people are free to ignore
that offer.

-- 
David Kastrup