"Trevor Daniels" <
address@hidden> writes:
> A.
> \override does a pop/push
> \revert does a pop
> \temporary\override does a push.
>
> so \temporary\override and \revert are a matching pair.
\revert are a matching "pair".
> B
> \override does a push
> \revert does a pop
> \clear restores the stack to the default state.
>
> so \override and \revert are a matching pair.
>
> Both of these are essentially equivalent, except A does not have a stack
> clear operation, but which of these is the clearer, and which the more
> intuitive?
You are viewing this from the "stack" angle. But that is a complex
view already.
I disagree with this point. I suspect that many of our users are familiar with word processors (probably more so than me) and are perfectly comfortable with the "undo" stack. I don't see why an override stack is more complicated.
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.
I don't find this much more complex:
\override sets a context-specific property value
\revert undoes the last \override
\reset (or whatever) restores lilypond's default.
And to make the "this works reliably" part work, we won't expose any
isolated \temporary \override without matching \revert in LilyPond.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't see how this is possible to achieve given that we support simultaneous music.
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"
That wasn't my underlying fear. My fear is that users will hear "push" and "pop," think that they mean something complicated, and turn off their brains.
Anyway, I don't want you to interpret this argument as being against your patch per se; obviously, it fixes a bunch of real bugs and that's great.
Cheers,
Joe