Re: \set vs \override

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:31:40PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I don't see a good rationale why \set, \override, \revert, \tweak should
>> not work on the same set of properties (including subproperties).  I
>> don't see an explanation why it makes sense to differentiate between
>> them.
>> 
>> And I am arrogant enough to believe that if I don't understand a design
>> decision after a few days of trying, it is likely that ultimately a lot
>> of people other than myself will be better off if the distinction gets
>> abolished.
>
> I can't speak to the programming side of things, but as an
> (ex-)user, documentation editor, and upcoming GLISS manager, I
> would *love* it if we could condense these commands into a single
> one.

I don't think that is necessary, they do different things after all (an
\override can be reverted, a \set not, a \tweak works just on a single
item rather than at a single moment like \once\override does).  What I
don't understand is why they are supposed to do this to only to specific
classes of properties.

-- 
David Kastrup