Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> Vectors don't make sense unless you give a mechanism to map/iterate
>>> over them, ie something along the lines of
>>>
>>> (make-parallel-music (vector->list
>>>   (map (lambda (x) (add-new-context "Staff" x)) violin)))
>>
>> It would be easy enough to let $@ work on arbitrary sequences, not just
>> lists.  You can already write things like
>>
>> << $@(map ...) >>
>>
>> How many people are asking for \violin2 all the time?
>
> How many people of these are asking for a O(1) indexed access
> container? I think most people just want to write "2" instead of
> "Two".  I don't see how a person asking for \violin2 is asking for
> arrays. Most compositions don't have more than 2 violin voices anyway.
>
> I am actually supportive of allowing digits in identifiers, it has
> irked me for years that we could not get it to work.

It is easy enough to get to work.  It just comes at a cost.

> I vaguely recall you implemented this in 2.16 already, but I guess I
> am mistaken?

You are.

-- 
David Kastrup