On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Joe Neeman <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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?
It is. The disadvantage is that it breaks all existing files. > 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? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
