David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Reinhold Kainhofer <reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at> writes: > >> On 2012-10-13 09:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:>> Maybe \push\override >> ... but this has the disadvantage that you >>>> never actively see a \pop. Hm. Maybe we should rename \undo to >>>> \pop then? >>> >>> I think that we either need a consistent use if \push and \pop, or we >>> should refrain using it. Given that the Scheme functions handling the >>> stack are not mapped one-to-one to user commands, as you've shown in a >>> previous mail, I think we should avoid \push and \pop. >> >> To me it is not only this inconsitency, but rather that the names >> push/pop come from programming languages and concepts. > > Uh, that is because they are a plastic visualization here? > >> Lately, I have seen many suggestions that would turn lilypond more >> into a programming language and away from being a description of >> music. > > Reality check: LilyPond already _has_ stacks for properties. Nobody > forces you to use any of the new commands if you don't care for stuff > working in a better organized manner than flat variables would give > you.
One can call \push and \pop instead \temporary and \undo, but who are you going to do a favor with that? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
