Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:37 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> As one example for an analogous use of optional arguments, consider
>>
>> \tweak Accidental #'color #red cis4
>>
>> \tweak has always been a music function.  Being able to use a syntax
>> fairly analogous to that of \override makes things simple and
>> straightforward for the user.  You don't want to write \default in place
>> of Accidental for every use without a grob qualification.
>
>
>> And you don't want to have him remember different function names for
>> each argument list variation.
>
> Here is another premise that hasn't been agreed on explicitly. I would
> nowadays hold that it is actually better to have different function
> names, and have the user be explicit about what he is doing.

But he is doing the same thing in each case.  It will either mean he has
to remember different names for the same thing, or we use some
systematic combination of function name and argument types, requiring
the user to do name-mangling.

> The discussion about syntax changes is not going to work unless we
> know in what direction we want to go.

I am mostly evading that question by staying where we are, but placing
wheels under the furniture, allowing us to redecorate when desired.
Namely by asking the question what kind of tools would make it possible
to create "more of the same".

-- 
David Kastrup