Re: possibility of merging \override and \set (was: Naming, _another_lacking puzzle piece)

[Trevor Daniels]

Mats Bengtsson wrote Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:06 PM

Nice to see you on the list again!

> On 10/14/2012 07:36 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>> Please, can we get away from thinking in terms of implementation details
>> and instead think of the use cases:
>>
>> 1) Just set a property (grob or context property) to a certain value,
>> don't worry about previous values
>> 2) Set a property to the defaults
>> 3) Temporarily set a property to a new value, being able to switch back
>> after a while
>> 4) Switch back to a previous value
> Good view point. However, trying to think as a regular user, I see no 
> point in distinguishing between use case 1) and 3). Why should I need to 
> distinguish between a setting that can be reverted and one that cannot? 

I guess the difference between (1) and (3) is in the effect of (4) - the
'previous values' will be different.

> For many years, I viewed the difference between set/unset vs. 
> override/revert as just different command names for context properties 
> vs. grob properties. It wasn't until David first started asking about 
> the exact differences, that I became more aware of the other 
> non-symmetries between the commands. It is of course important to 
> It is of course important to clarify all these details

Yes, I believe the time to do that is now, during the 2.17 cycle,
in which changes in syntax (and semantics) are being discussed and
implemented.

> Surely, we can 
> have a quick introduction to the concept of stacks in the documentation 
> (for example comparing to a deck of cards) 

or maybe the stack of hot plates in the plate well of a canteen, which
is a good example of a filo stack.  Other examples might include
coin holders, or the way some people "organise" their in-tray ;)

> but conceptually, the names 
> "override" and "revert" make at least as much sense for the layman and 
> even if the names at least currently are slightly misleading, the 

I think the names are fine.

Trevor