This discussion is strangely familiar. As one who learnt on FORTRAN IV many years ago, I'm used to seeing that:
READ INPUT TAPE 5, 501, IA, IB, IC
and
READINPUTTAPE5,501,IA,IB,IC
or even
RE ADIN PUTTA PE5,5 01,I A,I B,I C
are the same. I'm sure there were those back in the late '50s arguing
over the use of spaces and numbers within variables.
(OT) I've even seen code which intentionally mangled FORTRAN source to
make it unreadable, like the third example above.
On 02/10/18 22:27, Thomas Morley wrote:
> Am Di., 2. Okt. 2018 um 23:17 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>
>> So what is wrong with using \"var2" or \var.2 ?
>
> Ah, I forgot about var.1 etc
>
> Ofcourse below is a bit ugly I'd say:
>
> val.1 = "foo"
> <<
> \new Staff \repeat unfold 4 c'4
> \new Lyrics \lyricmode { \val.1 4 \val.1 2 \val.1 4 }
>>>
>
> Another possibility is to use superscript like
> val² = ...
> Ofcourse it's soso...
> It works not because it's supported but because it's not disallowed.
> Which may change in the future.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Harm
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
--
J Martin Rushton MBCS
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
