Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>>>  \tempo \markup{ Presto } 4. = 172 ~ 188
>>>>  c1 c
>>>> }
>>>
>>> While this might be a mess for the parser to sort out it is perfectly
>>> understandable for a musician trying to write his/her music.
>
> This is also the danger of having broad discussions over syntax.
> Everyone and their dog has an opinion of what syntax should look like,
> because an opinion is easy to form about
>
>   172 -- 178 vs.
>   172 ~ 178 vs.
>   { \tempo 4=72 \tempoMarkup \markup { \noteMarkup #"4" = 172 - 178 } }
>
> and whether to allow
>
>   \relative { c d }
>
> as a short hand for
>
>    \relative c' { c d }
>
> on the basis of how "intuitive" it looks.

It should be short for \relative f { c d } actually:

\relative f { c } -> c
\relative f { d } -> d
\relative f { e } -> e
\relative f { f } -> f
\relative f { g } -> g
\relative f { a } -> a
\relative f { b } -> b
\relative f { c' } -> c'

\relative c' { c } -> c'
\relative c' { d } -> d'
\relative c' { e } -> e'
\relative c' { f } -> f'
\relative c' { g } -> g
\relative c' { a } -> a
\relative c' { b } -> b
\relative c' { c' } -> c''

Now which seems more natural as a default value?  Not having to spell
out the f has the advantage of not having to think about what
peculiarity it is that favors f for this application.

> In the end, each syntax is a compromise between what you allow for
> expressivity, and how much you disallow to stop the user from shooting
> himself in the foot. If you decide to "reinvent" the syntax, you are
> only moving about the compromise, closing off one nest of rats in
> exchange for opening a can of worms.

Yup.  For a single command, \tempo overstresses the parser's hospitality
in my opinion.

-- 
David Kastrup