[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:00:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) |
Joe Neeman <address@hidden> writes:
> 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?
The argument list as such would require delimiting to make this work
independently from advance knowledge about the number of elements.
Which gets us to Scheme syntax. The enthusiasm of people about this
kind of fully delimited syntax is about on par with the enthusiasm about
writing XML files manually.
Also the type of an argument is not necessarily known without consulting
the function signature. As a silly example, try
var = \relative c'-3
\void\displayLilyMusic \var
Try guessing its output before running it. Find an explanation.
Replace \displayLilyMusic with \displayMusic and corroborate your
explanation.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, (continued)
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/03
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/03
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Werner LEMBERG, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Joe Neeman, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Joe Neeman, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/05
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/05
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/04
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2012/09/02