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
