[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)
From: |
Erik Sandberg |
Subject: |
Re: New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question) |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:24:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.5 |
[moving to -devel]
On Monday 08 January 2007 09:30, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> address@hidden wrote:
> > Increasing the number of different argument types for music functions
> > would almost certainly be extremely useful for users, who, judging from
> > this mailing list, seem to have an unlimited imagination when it comes to
> > wanting to be able to extend LP syntax.
>
> I doubt that the number of argument types is any major problem. The
I disagree: I think it would be useful to have more argument types; this would
make it possible to soft-code more of the commands that now are hard-coded in
the parser.
Also, more argument types would make it possible to implement some functions
more cleanly, which makes the lily<->scheme connection easier to understand
(it is not very clean to say \myFunction s2. if you mean \myFunction 2.,
IMHO)
I have been thinking; I see two ways to make durations work as function
arguments:
- Forbid space between pitch and duration in notes; create separate token
PITCH_AND_DURATION (it's unclean in a sense, and requires a small hack in the
lexer, but might be worth it). It shouldn't be too hard to write a convert-ly
rule for this, but in any case it could be wise to postpone this change to
v3.0
- Only allow durations as the first few parameters of music functions (so
(duration? music?) is allowed, but not (music? duration?)). I think this is a
dangerous path, as the rules for which signatures to allow can grow complex
if we find more argument types with similar problems.
Han-Wen?
--
Erik
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question),
Erik Sandberg <=