On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:19 AM, David Kastrup
<address@hidden> wrote:
You are viewing this from the "stack" angle. But that is a complex
view already. The actual user view is
A.
\override sets a context-specific property value
\revert removes a context-specific property value
This works reliably. If I ever need more complex stuff than that, I can
look it up.
And to make the "this works reliably" part work, we won't expose any
isolated \temporary \override without matching \revert in LilyPond.
How do you plan to achieve this? If there are any commands using a \temporary...\revert that spans for more than one timestep, I can always nest them and I can always sneak in \overrides between the \temporary and the \revert, just by putting music in parallel.
People have complained about \push/\pop being intolerably
programmer-centric _terminology_, but terminology is cheap. The
underlying fear was "people won't understand what push/pop does", and
that can't be cured by using prettier names but only by not doing
anything hard to understand unless asked for it.
I think stacks are easy to understand, even for non-technical users. The reason for avoiding push/pop is just to stop people from thinking "oh, that's programming, it must be hard."
LilyPond is _complex_, and sometimes one needs that complexity. But we
should try to keep simple things simple, and leave the need to
understand complex behavior for when complex things are required.
While that's true, I think that a coherent and consistent whole is more important than a slightly simpler beginner interface.
Cheers,
Joe