Re: modular "markup" and arguments

[David Kastrup]

Jan-Peter Voigt <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello all,
>
> I didn't follow the discussions about temporary and push-+-pop. Is there
> a simple explanation for the indroduction of \temporary? Why does
> \override-\revert now has to be \temporary\override-\revert?

Because it can.

If you use \override/\revert as previously, the behavior will be as
previously: any previously established layout property in the same
context will get lost.

> AFAICS it was introduced sometime in the 2.17 development and it will
> be for better lilypond-syntax or the like?

No, the syntax can't in good conscience be called "better".  Only the
resulting behavior.

There were _very_ heated discussions about this issue and a number of
different iterations and proposals.  Look them up in the issue tracker.

It's the "ugly, but better to have than have not" category.

> Am 06.11.2013 10:07, schrieb Johan Vromans:
>> For grob properties:
>> 
>> \override               pop + push value for prop
>> \temporary\override     push value for prop
>> \revert                 pop value for prop
>> \once\override          set (push?) grob prop for next operation, then
>>                         fall back (pop?) to current value

-- 
David Kastrup