On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:03:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> It's much simpler than that. Expressions are "greedy": what can become
> a part of them, will.
...
yuck?
> \displayMusic c4-3
>
> is existing syntax. Long-existing syntax. A total nuisance to support.
> But it is not like there is much choice involved here. It has been
> around eternities. Do you think all the backtracking folderol and
> mode-switching and token-juggling that is going on in the parser
> bypassing the basic LALR(1) algorithm has been implemented because I
> consider it fun?
yuck.
Quick off-the-cuff estimate: ignoring all user code, what would we
lose if we forced expressions to explicitly require arguments,
i.e.
\displayMusic { c4-3 }
\displayMusic ( c4-3 )
(ignore the symbol-clash between existing uses of {}() )
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
