On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> To me, a Grand Input Syntax "fixing" of LilyPond, would amount to >> >> creating a syntax that strictly separates parsing and interpretation. >> >> This implies not only rethinking a lot of syntax, but also it means >> >> letting go of some of the flexibility and conciseness of the current >> >> format. >> > >> > This sound like a Right Thing to do, but i'm not knowledgeable enough >> > to know what the results would actually be. Examples appreciated >> > (hopefully some examples will show in other discussions). >> >> Well, one simple consequence would be that one can't define music >> functions in a document (their definition is interpretation, their use >> is parsing). > > > With the current syntax, this is certainly true. But if a music function's > arguments were delimited syntactically somehow then we could parse without > interpreting any music functions, right? Correct. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
