On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:00 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys > > <hanw...@gmail.com> 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? > > The argument list as such would require delimiting to make this work > independently from advance knowledge about the number of elements. > Which gets us to Scheme syntax. The enthusiasm of people about this > kind of fully delimited syntax is about on par with the enthusiasm about > writing XML files manually. > > Also the type of an argument is not necessarily known without consulting > the function signature. As a silly example, try > > var = \relative c'-3 > > \void\displayLilyMusic \var > > Try guessing its output before running it. Find an explanation. > Replace \displayLilyMusic with \displayMusic and corroborate your > explanation. >
Isn't this an argument for delimiting the argument list? If you don't expect anyone to guess where it begins and ends correctly (and I didn't), doesn't that mean we should have a more explicit syntax? Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
