Re: Overrides and nesting: intentional?

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> 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, without deleting existing
>>> overrides.
>>
>> That's what I would expect, too. 
>> Of course, then the list of overrides will grow with every override and 
>> might 
>> be quite large for a very long score...
>
> Hm?  Either you want to override once, then the net result on the stack
> is none anyway, or you want to override permanently, then their is no
> growth, or you switch back and forth, then you'll need to revert in
> between.  But as things are currently, it is impossible to use \override
> for establishing a basic setting in the context: with the first
> \override/\revert pair, the basic setting is _gone_.  And you can't use
> \set for grob properties, either.

Anyway, I think that my given example was flawed in that it likely
relied on unintentionally broken behavior.  I probably was mistaken
about the intended behavior (override likely is intended to do a push
without a previous pop), but then given the quality of the user
documentation, I have to rely on a combination of actual behavior and my
interpretation of the code.

It does not exactly help that I currently get throws in critical
sections galore, maybe a problem with gcc/binutil/whatever.

-- 
David Kastrup