Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:20:43AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>> To me, a Grand Input Syntax "fixing" of LilyPond, would amount to
>>> creating a syntax that strictly separates parsing and interpretation.
>>> This implies not only rethinking  a lot of syntax, but also it means
>>> letting go of some of the flexibility and conciseness of the current
>>> format.
>>
>> Ok, consider one single "fix".  Change:
>>   {  \[ c'2     d' \]  }
>> into:
>>   {     c'2 \[  d' \]  }
>>
>> The old "enclosing" method of spanners (i.e. beams and slurs in
>> lilypond 1.x) is almost completely deprecated now.  Why not take
>> the next step and fix ligatures as well?  That would make the
>> syntax more consistent.
>
> Sounds good to me.  The disconcerting thing is that I don't see a good
> convert-ly rule on the horizon: we should have done this long ago,
> together with the rest.  Let me take a look at the parser...
>
> Looks like it would be simple to do, and likely one should also include
> \~ (PesOrFlexaEvent).
>
> I don't know the respective input modes and terminology: will there
> always be a note to attach all those to?

There are no specific input modes associated with ancient notes. The
real question is whether is a need to do things like

  ligatures  =  { \[ s1 \] \[ s1 \] }
  \new Voice << \melody \ligatures >>

you'd have to ask jurgen reuter who wrote basically all the ancient
notation support.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen