Re: [GLISS] basics

[Janek Warchoł]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:52 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>> Currently we want to focus on syntax alone.
>
> If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
>
> "Hard to do" is a large problem class, and it is not necessarily clear
> to users which problems could be diminuished by syntax changes, which
> are accessible nicely with the existing syntax, and which would warrant
> different mechanisms and frameworks.

Sorry, i should've used the term "ly language".  What i mean: when
asking users about their problems, i wouldn't differentiate between
these two areas - i'd just ask for everythin.  It would be our job to
decide what could be done with a bit of syntactic sugar, and what
needs changes in mechanisms and frameworks.
In other words, i'd just ask users for "things that need a change in
ly language", where "a change in ly language" can be either a helper
function or an actual change in how things work internally... I hope
that's clear.
(and it seems that we agree after all)

> The text-based input of LilyPond makes it orders of magnitude better for
> swapping home-made recipes than WYSIWYG systems, but we should not lose
> sight of the value of tweak-free black-box solutions over that.  The
> idea with a black-box approach is not necessarily that you _can't_ open
> the box and look inside, but that you in general don't need to do so.

Do i understand correctly that you mean "it's good to have helper
functions [1] that make code clean and tidy.  It is also good to be
able to look at the code of such function and create your own
derivative function if necessary"?

If so, that's like +111 from me - couldn't agree more.

[1] or other helper stuff, even if technically it's not a function

cheers,
Janek