Re: stepping down as project manager

[David Kastrup]

James <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> On 14 October 2012 07:39, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> The current semantics are basically non-stack, but the stack can be
>> reanimated temporarily from the Scheme layer.
>>
>> This reanimation makes sense from the user layer in some cases as
>> well, particularly when we are talking about "programming" in
>> LilyPond (writing reusable parts), something which was considered
>> more of an oddity/curiosity in 2005 than it is now.
>
> Yes :) and I am also guessing that those that use these features are
> the most vocal on the list precisely because they understand what they
> are doing when they use these 'fancy-shmancy' gymnastics within their
> music; (me? I just cut and paste stuff again and give it a new $name,

That is also "writing reusable parts": if they work with fewer side
effects, you are likely to have to do less polishing afterwards.
Granted, with Cut&Paste there is some expectation of having to do fixup
work afterwards.  When you reuse music variables or functions, fixup
work is unfeasible as you have to use exactly the same version
everywhere.

>> So based on the assumption that Han-Wen's stealthy change was due to
>> a stack having shown itself to be too complex for "normal (TM)"
>> users, it makes sense to structure the documentation for
>> \temporary/undo in relation to the basic \override/revert such that
>> the user is comfortable _not_ being familiar with them while at the
>> same time having access to the advanced information should he ever
>> need it.  It is not a must-learn item, but a
>> good-to-know-occasionally one.
>
> So I don't see any harm in keeping it simple in the Learning Manual
> but 'getting down and dirty' technically in the NR with an @ref back
> to the LM.

I don't think it would get all that dirty in the NR, but indeed I see
little reason for bothering with stack semantics at all in the LM.

-- 
David Kastrup