Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[Joe Neeman]

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> 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.
>
> This sound like a Right Thing to do, but i'm not knowledgeable enough
> to know what the results would actually be.  Examples appreciated
> (hopefully some examples will show in other discussions).

Well, one simple consequence would be that one can't define music
functions in a document (their definition is interpretation, their use
is parsing). 

With the current syntax, this is certainly true. But if a music function's arguments were delimited syntactically somehow then we could parse without interpreting any music functions, right?

Cheers,

Joe