Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:46 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> Are there good reasons left for not allowing music functions to take >> pitches as arguments? That would allow implementing something like > > how would you encode the pitch though? Does > > \func cis'' > > parse to > > FUNCTION PITCH > > or > > FUNCTION Music ? > > (PITCH -> single note -> Music ; names may not be exact wrt parser.yy)
Perhaps I have not put myself forward reasonably clearly: the idea was not just to use a predicate in the function signature, but to let that predicate be special-cased in the parser. The function expands to a number of tokens representing the signature constituents (that is already being done, we just need another token type), and then those signature tokens are used for interpreting the actually upcoming tokens. So cis'' would never get interpreted or read as "sequential music", but indeed only as a pitch specification. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
