On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:20:43AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>> To me, a Grand Input Syntax "fixing" of LilyPond, would amount to
>>> creating a syntax that strictly separates parsing and interpretation.
>>> This implies not only rethinking a lot of syntax, but also it means
>>> letting go of some of the flexibility and conciseness of the current
>>> format.
>>
>> Ok, consider one single "fix". Change:
>> { \[ c'2 d' \] }
>> into:
>> { c'2 \[ d' \] }
>>
>> The old "enclosing" method of spanners (i.e. beams and slurs in
>> lilypond 1.x) is almost completely deprecated now. Why not take
>> the next step and fix ligatures as well? That would make the
>> syntax more consistent.
>
> Sounds good to me. The disconcerting thing is that I don't see a good
> convert-ly rule on the horizon: we should have done this long ago,
> together with the rest. Let me take a look at the parser...
>
> Looks like it would be simple to do, and likely one should also include
> \~ (PesOrFlexaEvent).
>
> I don't know the respective input modes and terminology: will there
> always be a note to attach all those to?
There are no specific input modes associated with ancient notes. The
real question is whether is a need to do things like
ligatures = { \[ s1 \] \[ s1 \] }
\new Voice << \melody \ligatures >>
you'd have to ask jurgen reuter who wrote basically all the ancient
notation support.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
