On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). >
With the current syntax, this is certainly true. But if a music function's arguments were delimited syntactically somehow then we could parse without interpreting any music functions, right? Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
