Re: stepping down as project manager

[Marc Hohl]

Am 13.10.2012 21:48, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Janek wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, David seems to be the only active developer that
> > > > understands some parser subtleties - in other words, only he fully
> > > > knows the whys.
> > > Well, there is nothing magic about that as nobody else ever looks at the
> > > parser.
> > I understand that you're frustrated, but please note that i'm trying
> > to read and review your syntax patches.
> I am not frustrated.  I am just a central collection point for
> everybody's frustration, and blaming me for everything that is hard is
> just silly.
>
> Take a look at the recent proposal of \temporary.  This basically goes
> like "Here is a solution for a problem I encounter sometimes and that is
> also a problem in our codebase" -- "Oh no, not another solution.  How
> are we supposed to keep track?  Let's keep the problem instead.  Nobody
> else noticed it so far anyhow, let's just ignore your demonstration of
> it."
I think it is not meant as "Oh no, not another solution" – the problem I 
see here
is that your work reveals the mess about lilypond's internal structures:
the inconsistency about using the stack, the old context properties vs. 
grob properties,
the \set/\override stuff (sorry for simplifying, you get the point).

Combine that with a deep desire for something like

change whatever property to value x
change whatever property to value x for once
revert whatever property to its predefined state
revert whatever property to the value befor the latest change

– I think that's how the "Oh no ..." message is meant.

In either case, I think it is not meant as an accusation to your work.

Let me try to formulate it another way:
something like \push and \pop look like an ideal solution to write
own lilypond functions that leave no trace after they finished their work
(yet another simplification) so great! Let's have them!

On the other side, a newbie on lilypond which just wants to color some
note heads may be confused with the pop/push concept as he or she
has never used a programming language – in this case, \temporary
sounds a lot more friendly and familiar.

So this should be considered – we don't want to scare users away, but
provide a powerful tool for intermediate and advanced users (and, of course,
proper redefinitions for already available functions like \crossStaff and
the likes).

Conclusion: I appreciate your latest work – it is just that I am not
used to use \omit, \single, \undo and therefore bringing \temporary
into line with the (yet unfamiliar) rest of the new stuff takes just some
time. Perhaps I am not the only one who has these "problems".

Regards,

Marc