[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax? |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:21:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) |
Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>> the "LaTeX" syntax for lilypond-book happens to be something like
>>
>> \begin[verbatim,fragment]{lilypond}
>> \relative c' { c << { d e } { b c } >> <c es g> }
>> \end{lilypond}
>>
>> Unfortunately, this is quite annoying since actual optional
>> arguments for environments come _after_ the environment name in
>> LaTeX, like
>>
>> \begin{lilypond}[verbatim,fragment]
>> \relative c' { c << { d e } { b c } >> <c es g> }
>> \end{lilypond}
>>
>> Would it be feasible to obsolete the first syntax and support (and
>> recommend) the second syntax?
>
> I don't see any reason not to do that. We even don't have to change
> the name of the environment. Just allow both
>
> \begin{lilypond}[...]
>
> and
>
> \begin[...]{lilypond}
>
> It should be straightforward to extend lilypond-book's regexp to make
> this work.
It is not an entirely backward-compatible change since
\begin{lilypond}[c16 d e f]
\end{lilypond}
is likely currently valid input. Also LaTeX has the rather annoying
feature to skip whitespace before prospective optional arguments. So
\begin{lilypond}
[c16 d e f]
\end{lilypond}
would still count, from a LaTeX point of view, as an optional argument.
My personal take on this would be to have lilypond-book interpret
\begin{lilypond}[...
as introducing options, but don't interpret [ as an option introducer
after any spaces have occured after \begin{lilypond}.
One can implement this on the TeX side (once one wants to implement
lilypond-book in that manner) as well, in order to avoid having to write
\begin{lilypond}[]
[c16 d e f]
\end{lilypond}
in order to convince LaTeX that no options are present.
--
David Kastrup
- Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?, David Kastrup, 2010/04/18
- Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?, Francisco Vila, 2010/04/18
- Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/04/18
- Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?, Carl Sorensen, 2010/04/18
- Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?, David Kastrup, 2010/04/19
- Re: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?, David Kastrup, 2010/04/19
- Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change (was: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?), David Kastrup, 2010/04/19
- Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change (was: Rationale for LaTeX lilypond-book syntax?), Graham Percival, 2010/04/19
- Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change, David Kastrup, 2010/04/19
- Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change, Graham Percival, 2010/04/19
- Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change, Carl Sorensen, 2010/04/19
- Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change, Graham Percival, 2010/04/19
- Re: Patch for LaTeX lilypond-syntax change, David Kastrup, 2010/04/20