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

[Janek Warchoł]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> One rather sobering consequence is that any command accepting a grob
>>> specification will _not_ be able to take a proper string generated in
>>> Scheme using #... for it.  It will always require at least a _list_ of
>>> strings.  This is consistent with 2.16 behavior of \override/\revert etc
>>> where you had to at least use $... to get a string into this place (it
>>> is not consistent with the current more lenient 2.17 behavior, but it is
>>> not likely anybody noticed so far).
>>
>> I don't understand this part.  Small example please?
>
> Assuming \override-like-function is defined with an argument of type
> symbol-list?, you get
>
> \override-like-function #"Slur" ... -> argument error
> \override-like-function #"Voice" . #"Slur" -> syntax error
> \override-like-function "Slur" ... -> #'(Slur)
> \override-like-function "Voice" . "Slur" ... -> #'(Voice Slur)
> \override-like-function Slur ... -> #'(Slur)
> \override-like-function Voice.Slur ... -> #'(Voice Slur)
> \override-like-function $"Slur" ... -> #'(Slur)
> \override-like-function $"Voice" . $"Slur" ... -> #'(Voice Slur)
>
> #xxx tells LilyPond "please use xxx unchanged without any
> context-dependent magic".
>
> Currently \override _itself_ will accept #"Slur" as one form of a
> specification, but that behavior is not older than a few weeks, so it is
> unlikely anybody depends on it, and it would probably make sense to stop
> it from accepting things that a musicfunction-based simulation would
> have no access to.

Ah, so it's about cases when someone wants to manipulate the Grob
argument using Scheme.

>> Overall LquiteGTM.
>
> Hey, I have not even _started_ with issue/review, so merging is still a
> bit away.  I am just in the state where all regtests pass after a set of
> back-and-forth commits and I decided to do everything almost, but not
> quite, entirely unlike before.
>
> So I have some heavy rebasing to do, and then rewrite, and then it makes
> some sense talking again about this.  I was just putting forth some
> preliminary views of what I am doing

Yeah, i just meant "go ahead".

best,
Janek