On 2011/11/06 04:31:23, Carl wrote:
One question -- as you move from parser tokens to music functions, is
the
capability of displayLilyMusic being kept functional for all of these
functions?
Since \displayLilyMusic does not see whether the music it looks at is generated by music functions or hard-coded grammar or Scheme, it is not affected at all. So as long as the redefinitions are upwards-compatible, the previous value set will remain reproducible. Syntax extensions, however, need to be programmed into \displayLilyMusic.
I really like having things be functions, instead of hard-coded
syntax. It
seems to give a lot more flexibility.
The main flexibility you get is that you can program commands with similar syntax to existing ones, but different functionality. You also get uniform documentation ending up in the same place, and uniform operator precedence.
Thanks for this great work, David
Well, I hate having to program in C++, so I am moving all the power I can to Scheme. As a result, code survey tools say that my main programming language in the Lilypond project is C++. Seems like I am more focused on satisfaction than happiness. http://codereview.appspot.com/5333051/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
