Re: [GLISS] turn xxx.yyy into ("xxx" "yyy")

[David Kastrup]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> writes:

> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
>>> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string.  I
>>> want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz").
>>
>> Go!
>
> isn't using symbols
>
>    '(xxx yyy zzz)
>
> more scheme-like, schemonic, schemesque?

Well, this is one area where Lua as an extension language really shines:
you don't need to choose between the representation as a string or the
representation as an interned symbol because Lua only ever has interned
strings.

With LilyPond, we already have taken the choice

Name -> "Name"

and I would consider it rather awkward then if we had

Name.other -> (list 'Name 'other)

If we are going to choose the symbol representation (which comes at the
cost of interning, a cost that is consolidated if you can do enough
eq?-like comparisons that are more interesting for scalars), it does not
make sense that we use strings for scalars.

There is one advantage, though: after

    xxx = a . b

\xxx will not get classified as a MARKUPLIST_IDENTIFIER.  However, I
have come to the conclusion that both MARKUP_IDENTIFIER as well as
MARKUPLIST_IDENTIFIER are a bad idea.  One reason is that after

xxx = \markup text
yyy = \markup \italic text

you can use \yyy at top level (because it is a MARKUP_IDENTIFIER) but
you can't use \xxx at top level (because it is a STRING_IDENTIFIER).
Also after

xxx = #'()

\xxx is a MARKUPLIST_IDENTIFIER which is plain silly.  Yes, even after I
remove the classifications of MARKUP_IDENTIFIER and
MARKUPLIST_IDENTIFIER, you will be able to use

xxx = a . b

\xxx

at top level, with it being equivalent to \markuplist { a b } and I am
not all too enthused about that.  You'll also be able to use

But \markuplist { a b } _is_ equivalent to #(list "a" "b") so I don't
see that I can exactly do much about that if I want to stay reasonably
consistent.

-- 
David Kastrup