order of function arguments (was: Add the command \offset)

[Janek Warchoł]

Hi,

On 2013/04/21 08:23:34, dak wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <mailto:address@hidden> writes:
>
> > 2013/4/16  <address@hidden>:
> >> Uh, a call of offset can be followed by music quite naturally.  So this
> >> is not just a "technical restriction".  It is one of logic.
> >
> > So, do i understand correctly that \offset could have a syntax like
> >
> > \offset grob-property-path value music
> >
> > And then, if grob-property-path contained only property,
> > the function would be used as a tweak (with "music" being
> > what's tweaked), and if the function was being used as an
> > override (grob-property-path contains a grobname), "music"
> > would be sort-of-unused?
>
> Possible, but "sort-of-unused" is not a reasonable interface.

Hmm.  What do you suggest then?
It's not doing us good when user interfaces for different
functions don't have a common specification wrt/ argument
order.
I'm pretty sure that this will increase the confusion among
users (that's not an argument to reject patch adding \offset -
it's now a general question).

Do you see any reasonable strategies for solving this?
(as you know, my ultimate goal is merging as many modifying
commands, e.g. merging \set and \override - but i'm not trying
to suggest any solutions, because i have no expertise in this
area, just some expectations).

best,
Janek