Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
> I don't follow this. If we can produce an unambiguous "expansion"
> of
> c'1-<< s4 s\< s2 z\! >>
> into
> << { c'1 } { s4 s\< s2 z\! } >>
> then surely it can be expressed as music functions.
\displayLilyMusic would have no chance reconstructing the input. The
meaning of - here is quite different to normal usage, there is no really
meaningful interpretation to things like
c'1-<< s4 s\< s2 z\! >>-.
as opposed to the normal alliterative meaning of accents, there is no
sensible interpretation to
x = -<< s4 s\< s2 z\! >>
in an assignment, or in a use as a music argument.
This is a quantum leap backwards in making LilyPond and Scheme
expressions and variables and functions and arguments in the parser work
and combine in a predictable manner.
I am working hard on stopping the Scheme layer from being something
entirely different and interacting in unpredictable ways with LilyPond
depending on where variables and function arguments start and end.
I really don't get why people are keen on destroying all progress we
have made regarding a straightforward relation between Scheme and
LilyPond.
> I know that you are not convinced that this can be done
> unambiguously, but that's what we're talking about.
Given the respective levels of work, expertise and planning invested in
the parser, I would wish for a modicum more of listening accompanying
the talking.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
