Re: [GLISS] Existing syntax abominations

[James]

On 21 September 2012 17:46, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

>
> Another parser baddy is \alternatives since it means that no \repeat
> expression can be considered complete without checking for potentially
> following alternatives.  It would make more sense if the alternatives
> were written _inside_ of the repeat.  Much more sense actually.

About the only part of the thread I could follow (I _do_ try.. honest!).

The NR says at the moment that the construct is

\repeat volta repeatcount musicexpr
\alternative {
  { musicexpr }
}

For some reason I have always found this awkward as I consider the
alternative as 'part' of the repeat 'construct'.

So if you mean something like


\repeat volta repeatcount { musicexpr
\alternative {
  { musicexpr }
} }

Or similar would be better in the parser, I would find it more logical
as writing it down in .ly language.

Maybe there are problems when you have

\repeat volta repeatcount { musicexpr
\alternative {
  { musicexpr }
\alternative {
  { musicexpr }
\alternative {
  { musicexpr }
} }

or maybe not

Anyway, I can feel myself sinking in a pool of ignorance, so I'll stop
now, but I would say, assuming I have that right, that this kind of
change would be better for 'me' (as a user) as I now think of thinks
in 'container' (or blocks I guess) and this is just a \repeat { }
block,

James