Re: Issue 1322 in lilypond: \context must die (whenever \new can be used instead)

[lilypond]

Comment #11 on issue 1322 by percival.music.ca: \context must die (whenever  
\new can be used instead)
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1322

@comment 7 Trevor:
it's not impossible to let a user add items to the parser.  I'm claiming  
this would be easy, or that it might require a fundamental rewrite of basic  
lilypond stuff, or that it would even be a good idea, but I don't think  
that we should outright reject the idea of letting people define \mystaff.

Once the topic arises in GLISS, I'm quite open to the argument "this would  
require about 100 hours of work, and the benefit isn't worth it", or "ok,  
we _could_ add this ability with 50 hours of work, but it would make all  
code compile 200% slower, so it wouldn't be worth it".  But I want to keep  
it on the table until we officially reject it with sound reasons.  (and  
then if the topic comes up again, we can point people at the reasons why we  
rejected the idea, and then they know what kind of patch / speed penalty  
would be involved, and try to overcome those technical difficulties on  
their own if they want to raise the parser-modifying idea again)


@Carl:
I don't see any logical connection between "\new" and "anonymous".  I do,  
however, see a connection between "\new" and "creating something".  Maybe  
the functionality of "\new" should be achieved with a differently-named  
command?  (\anonymous ? nah, no non-functional-programmer would understand  
it)  or maybe isolate the "named context" idea -- have a \named Staff "foo"  
vs. \unnamed Staff ?


I've added a link to this issue in the list of GLISS specifics.  You can  
verify this here:
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gliss/specifics.html