2011/8/6 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Going back to your colorful examples, here's what effects i'd expect:
\relative c' {
c4
\once\override Stem #'color = #red
\override Stem #'color = #blue
c4 c
\revert Stem #'color
c4
}
black blue blue black
That's a
2011/8/5 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
On the hopefully correct assumption that this was intended to go to the
list and just mistakenly sent in private
Yes, i occasionally misclick the button. Thanks!
I think that originally \override was a push, \revert was a pop, and
\once\override was a
Jan Warchoł lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com writes:
2011/8/5 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
I'm not sure if i understand it (is a a property or a value?),
Property. I am not yet concerned about values... Anyway, I am not sure
I understand what I write either.
but it seems to me that
- Original Message -
From: Jan Warchoł lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com
Going back to your colorful examples, here's what effects i'd expect:
+1 on all of those.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
If I take the following code:
\relative c' {
c4
\once\override Stem #'color = #red
\override Stem #'color = #blue
c4 c
\revert Stem #'color
c4
}
the result is that the second stem is blue, and the third is already
black again. That surprised me. If I take
On the hopefully correct assumption that this was intended to go to the
list and just mistakenly sent in private (I don't think there is content
that would benefit from a private discussion):
Jan Warchoł lemniskata.bernoulli...@gmail.com writes:
2011/8/5 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
If I take
and nesting: intentional?
)
)
)Now take that incoherent mess, and add nested properties into it.
)Apparently the current code has no qualms to start an \override with a
)pop that will cancel an entirely unrelated operation.
)
)Now if we do something like (never mind the value and the syntax)
)\override a.b.c
James Lowe james.l...@datacore.com writes:
[...]
)Now take that incoherent mess, and add nested properties into it.
)Apparently the current code has no qualms to start an \override with a
)pop that will cancel an entirely unrelated operation.
)
)Now if we do something like (never mind the
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 19:08:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
Proposal 1: \override should not start with an internal \revert but
rather do just what the user documentation says: push its own version in
front of the existing alist of properties, without deleting existing
overrides.
That's what
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes:
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 19:08:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
Proposal 1: \override should not start with an internal \revert but
rather do just what the user documentation says: push its own version in
front of the existing alist of properties,
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes:
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 19:08:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
Proposal 1: \override should not start with an internal \revert but
rather do just what the user documentation says: push its own version in
front
11 matches
Mail list logo
