[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > overload \context, or should I add \contextdefinition?
> >
>
> Is it really necessary at all to call \translator in the definition
> phase?
This discussion is tilting towards `Could you implement feature XXXX?
It is really easy, just extend the syntax to allow YYYY'. In short
yes, I think it is necessary, and if you want to disprove me, go ahead
and show me some code.
> That's a possibility. Another idea is to view lilypond as more of an
> interpreter, parsing would generate 'code' for lilypond commands, such
> as modifying (or completely replacing) the currently active translator
> by another.
I don't want LilyPond to be interpreter, because it implies that Lily
would have a programming language. We're going to extend mudela to be
a programming language. Perhaps we could provide various parts of
Lily as GUILE procedures , which would result in a scheme programmabel
environment. I do have my reservations whether this would make lily
easier to use.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/
_______________________________________________
Gnu-music-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-music-discuss
