On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 08:47:40PM +1000, Joe Neeman wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 00:59 -0700, Mark Polesky wrote: > > Come on, you have to admit that this is terribly confusing! And as > > far as I can tell, none of this is satisfactorily documented. I'm > > trying to do something about it, but my goodness, I've already hit > > the wall on my first datatype. > > I suspect that much of the confusion could be alleviated by modifying > the parser to allow scalar where embedded_scm is currently required. > That would remove most (all?) of the cases in which # is required. It's > possible, however, that this might introduce ambiguities in the parser.
Alternately, we could be stricter about this -- I wouldn't mind if we insisted that people use \override foo #'bar = #5 instead of allowing the non-# form, if then we could state as a general rule that overrides required a # after the = I think Mark's doing a good job here, and I second your suggestion that he learn bison and flex. We'll need somebody who knows these things when we start discussing the syntax in GLISS. (ok, I said that we wouldn't try to standardize the overrides, but I think that coming up with a general rule about when a # is required in a lilypond file would be worth it) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
