Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

It would work to do

    ligatures = { s1\[ s1\]\[ <>\] }

If we say "that's ugly", it's not like the situation would be any
different with () [] \(\)

-- 
David Kastrup