Re: Nested context properties -- an implementation sketch

[Trevor Daniels]

David

I think we need to clarify a few things first.

You wrote

> The semantics can be summarized as follows:
>
> a) a revert will only cancel the last _matching_ override, and the 
> match
>   includes the complete specified property path, _and_ the 
> prospective
>   use of \once.  \revert will not cancel \once\override and vice 
> versa.
> b) At the end of a timestep, all \once\override are reverted.  All
>   non-\once overrides remain in effect and on the stack as if none 
> of
>   the \once\override had ever happened.

Will the order of \override and \once \overide within
the same timestep for the same property matter, or
does the \once \override always take precedence within
its timestep?

I'm not clear about stacking.  Will \override be equivalent
to push and \revert to pop, with the top value left on
the stack being effective?  Or is there no stack?

> I have no clear view about \set yet.  It would seem to me that 
> \unset
> should be equivalent to \revert, and \set should be equivalent to
> \revert+\override.

As we are contemplating a major change anyway, I'd
prefer an equivalence in operation of \override,
\once \override and \revert with \set, \once \set
and \unset.  Or is this infeasible?

Trevor



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3833 - Release Date: 08/14/11