Han-Wen writes:
"You are all correct, but you are suggesting to change the way
"\property" works. What I am trying to say, is that we need a second
and different kind of "property" (and a different syntax), while
retaining the old behavior of \property. A property of the input
itself (and not of the conversion). Such a design would also ease the
transition between the different mechanisms."
I'm not sure that complication is necessary.
Try looking at it this way:
Any property has a scope, that depends on what it does. Some must by
their very nature apply to the entire page (line width), some to an
entire staff (clef), and some can apply right down to individual
notes (note shapes). At the very top of a Mudela file, there are the
"out of the box" default properties. These are inherited at all
levels of the code unless overwritten explicitly, as they are now.
If an attempt is made to change any property at too low a context
level for that change to be valid, it must be ignored and a warning
issued. If I understand correctly, this is how the existing property
concept works, and can apply consistently to new ones such as we
propose as well.
Have I missed something?
John
