Hi David, > It's easy to tell the developers "make it so". But before you can tell > a compiler to "make it so", you need to have a logically coherent > proposal.
I wasn’t trying to tell anybody to "make it so" — I was just avoiding offering my limited (and almost certainly flawed) understanding of Lily’s underpinnings when others (such as yourself) might give a detailed, useful, and accurate answer instead. However, I’m always happy to have a discussion towards a logically coherent proposal that would allow a compiler to "make it so" for some given feature/request such as this one. So here are my first offerings: > Is c4 a note or a variable name? If I saw c4 = something then I would think it’s a variable. If I saw c4 something (i.e., without an assignment operator) I would think it’s a note. Is that a rule that can be made logically coherent for a compiler? > Is \part2 the variable "part" followed > by a half note, or is it the variable "part2"? If I were developing Lilypond code, I simply wouldn’t allow a note value to be post-fixed to a variable, so \part2 would have only one interpretation (i.e., as the variable "part2"). But that’s only because I can’t see a good use case for the alternative. Can anyone suggest a reason to allow part = { c4 8 8 } \part2 where the latter is intended to do something… um… coherent? Cheers, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user