Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes:
> 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?
With what meaning? Note that currently you can write
#{ \with { ... } #} as a Scheme expression, and get a context
modification.
> or maybe
> {
> \with { }
> c4 d4
> }
> again requiring the \with{} to be the first item (if it exists at
> all) ?
Again, what meaning? I think that without extra braces, material should
_fit_ in its context.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
