Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >>> Would it be possible to have >>> >>> \override Accidental.color #red >>> \override Voice.Accidental.color >>> >>> ? For me, this feels most natural. >> >> Won't work since you can't distinguish >> \override Voice.Accidental.color >> >> from >> >> \override Accidental.bound-details.left >> >> and I really don't want to try picking this apart based on >> uppercase/lowercase letter distinctions. > > In other words, `.' is used for two different purposes, namely to > indicate hierarchy of Contexts and accessing properties of grobs.
No, it is used for tying several symbols into one list. \override takes one list for specifying the grob, and one list for specifying the property/subproperty of the grob. \tweak takes just a single list for specifying the property, but that list may include a grob at its start. It's just that the lists for \override and \tweak are structured differently when \tweak takes an optional grob specification. But the purpose of '.' is the same in each case. > What about to disunify these two purposes, introducing a different > symbol? Something like > > \override Voice>Accidental.color > \override Accidental.bound-details.left That does not map to anything useful at the Scheme level. Nor does it map to any useful concept. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel