David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > >> It was an observation, not a proposal. >> Speaking only for myself, I can perfectly life without the >> comma-syntax in definitions and their calls. > > It feels weird in definitions. Don't remember whether there was some > original rationale for it (like consistency, possibly connected with > convenience in reusing parser rules).
Ah, the way "property_path" is defined via "symbol_list_rev" and symbol lists also in function arguments are defined as being able to contain either '.' or ',' means that even if one forces the first separator to be a '.', the following separators are hard to avoid being also permissable as ','. So navigating around that inconsistency is pretty ugly: it will sometimes work and sometimes not. But maybe definition and call of those kind of separated variables should at least be identical and consequently require a first dot even if for technical reasons the following separators may happen to admit commata. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
