Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> 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. > > This sound like a Right Thing to do, but i'm not knowledgeable enough > to know what the results would actually be. Examples appreciated > (hopefully some examples will show in other discussions).
Well, one simple consequence would be that one can't define music functions in a document (their definition is interpretation, their use is parsing). The use of Scheme would be quite constrained, as reading it is parsing, evaluating it interpretation. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
