Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes:
>>> This works:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> { \ottava -1 c }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> while this fails:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> { \ottava +1 c'' }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> Is there a technical reason for it?
>>
>> As far as LilyPond is concerned, `+` is not a part of numbers. Is
>> there a compelling argument for wasting syntactic elements on doing
>> nothing?
>
> I think that 'wasting' is too harsh a statement. In comparison to
> other syntactical elements (together with the interpretation of Scheme
> code), a change to support `+` has no significant impact, AFAICS.
It makes + inelegible for other purposes. + as a sign does nothing, so
the language does not gain anything at all.
You could potentially require its use for disambiguating durations from
numbers, but I don't think requiring people to type + all the time is
going to be a crowd pleaser.
`-` is used within chords. So is `+`. `-` is specially lexed in chords
because of syntactic conflicts. That comes with its own bunch of
problems. `+` isn't. Yet.
`-` can become a part of numerical tokens in certain syntax modes, so it
isn't just the parser that is involved here but also the lexer.
> Can you imagine any other use for `+` right before numbers? Otherwise
> I suggest to make it work, to provide the least surprise for users.
Do we say anywhere that `+` is a sign in LilyPond syntax? Where does
the surprise come from?
--
David Kastrup
