[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: parallel versus series scoring
From: |
Erik Sandberg |
Subject: |
Re: parallel versus series scoring |
Date: |
Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:47:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.3 |
On Saturday 21 January 2006 12.33, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
>
> As you point out, this presents syntactical difficulties. Why not do
>
> \parMusic #'(A B C) { c | e | g | d | f | a}
>
> which expands to { }, and defines the following vars in the parser
>
> A = { c d }
> B = { e f }
> C = { g a }
>
> then, the user can decide for himself how to structure A B and C.
And as a bonus, we get a built-in command for variable assignments inside
music expressions (which sometimes has been requested):
\parMusic #'(foo) { ... }
(given that \parMusic returns a dummy music expression).
BTW, it would be nice and uniform if 'void' music functions would be possible,
i.e., music functions using the \foo {...} syntax (as opposed to #(foo #{ ...
#}), and whose return values are ignored. I looked at parser.yy, and it look
fairly easy to implement.
--
Erik
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Nicolas Sceaux, 2006/01/21
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/01/21
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Nicolas Sceaux, 2006/01/22
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/01/22
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Nicolas Sceaux, 2006/01/22
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/01/22
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Graham Percival, 2006/01/22
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Nicolas Sceaux, 2006/01/24
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/01/22
- Re: parallel versus series scoring, Nicolas Sceaux, 2006/01/24