Re: New read/eval Scheme syntax inconsistent in handling existing code

[David Kastrup]

Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> writes:

> Greetings everybody,
>
> David's new code with #/$(scheme) styles does offer a lot of exciting
> possibilities...

Actually, I don't think that there are any new possibilities offered by
the change.  It is just that the existing possibilities are accessible
using quite fewer special rules, exceptions and surprises.

If it makes you _think_ about new possibilities, then this is part of
what the change was about.

It makes the interaction of #{ ... #} with $ straightforward to
understand: previously there was about half a dozen rules of what you
could do with $ in what context inside of #{ ... #}.  Now there is no
special rule inside of #{ ... #}, and $ can be described in one sentence
(just like \, but takes a Scheme expression instead of an identifier).
And in that manner it does the job of ly:export sufficiently well (not
completely, since you can't hide it in the bowels of a #) to make it
expendible.

Taking the mystery out of #{ ... #} was worth it to me.  The more
acquainted you are with the strange behavior of Lilypond and have made
your peace with it, the less useful you'll find those changes.

You can't do anything as far as I can tell you could not do before.  But
it's not a third as scary to try.

-- 
David Kastrup