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. (wrapping the revert into something like \override Slur #'direction = #'revert although we'd probably want to choose a different \command to avoid confusion with the old syntax.) However, I'm not at all certain that this would be an easy (or even possible) change. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
