Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:46 PM
>
>> As for command names, i'd prefer not to name them \pop and \push as
>> this doesn't say anything to non-programmers.  To put it differently:
>> i'd prefer to solve this problem in a way that doesn't require
>> *creating new push and pop commands*.  But i have no idea if this is
>> possible.
>> 
>> 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).
>
> Plus \once and now \temporary.  I agree this menagerie is going to be 
> far more confusing to users than the occasional unexpected result after 
> calling \crossStaff or \harmonicByFret - which no one has ever
> noticed. 

No user is required to read the source to \crossStaff or
\harmonicByFret.  That feat is entirely voluntary, and there is no
guarantee that doing so is safe from damaging mind and body.

> Users get quite confused enough with just \override, \revert, \set, \unset
> and \tweak.
>
> We're going too far in this direction now.

We are going _nowhere_.  We already are _there_.  If people say they
don't want to switch on the light, I am fine with that.  It saves me
work to ignore problems and tools in user documentation.  But it does
not make sense to keep the tools away from people working on LilyPond
itself and say "please don't provide simple, easy to use tools for
fixing bugs which no one has ever noticed".

-- 
David Kastrup