Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux > <nicolas.sce...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption >>> that they are supported by lexer and parser? >>> >>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by >>> markup in the arguments. Anything else? >> >> I'd say, a markup-list command signature should follow the pattern: >> >> scheme* markup* markup-list* >> >> that is, any number of scheme arguments, then any number of single markup >> arguments, then any number of markup-list arguments, even though I don't >> know if having several markup list arguments is useful or not (and if it's >> doable). > > AFAICR the ordering is just there for syntax consistency. If you can > make a patch that generalizes markup argument handling like the > argument handling for music functions, that would be awesome.
Well, they need to be in order yet. But other than that, the dependency appears to be gone. Check out <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/969046> Should I post the patch series to the list? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
