On Friday 05 January 2007 09:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > . . . \tupletSequence 2/3 {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}} > > would just be a shorthand for > > \tuplet 2/3 {c d e} \tuplet 2/3 {f g a} \tuplet 2/3 {b c d} > > That would add a big semantic burden to the meaning of "{" and "}". > Currently {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}} means the same thing as > {c d e f g a b c d}.
It's not a problem. The { m1 m2 m3 } syntax is used for repeat alternatives already, and the meaning is very clear: Each music expression between the outer { } is a separate argument. Note also that the tupletSequence function would be implemented entirely in Scheme, the parser would not be modified. Examples: > I would hate to have to write the parser that would > figure out (reliably) what > {{c d e} {f g} {a b c}} \tuplet {c d e} \tuplet {f g} \tuplet {a b c} > or > {{c d e} {{f g} a} b c} \tuplet {c d e} \tuplet {{f g} a} \tuplet b \tuplet c > or > {{c8 d e} {f4 g a}} \tuplet {c d e} \tuplet {f4 g a} > mean (as arguments to \tupletSequence). And if > \seq = {{a8 b c} {d8 e f}} > then, since LP macros are *not* string macros, what will the parser > do with the argument > { {g8 f e} \seq {b8 a g} } \tuplet {g f e} \tuplet \seq \tuplet {b a g} -- Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user