On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:19:09PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > What happens if somebody writes
> > { \with foo c4 \with bar d4 }
> > ?
>
> Good catch. I don't think we want anything but a syntax error here.
> One approach would be not to ignore Scheme expressions in a sequence
> unless they evaluate to "unspecified" or at least a limited set of
> "ignorable" values.
Would it be possible to enforce something like
{
{ \with foo \with bar ... only \with }
c4 d4
}
where the \with stuff needs to happen as the first item inside the
larger expression? or maybe
{
\with { }
c4 d4
}
again requiring the \with{} to be the first item (if it exists at
all) ?
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
