Re: Make arguments like Context.GrobName accessible as symbol lists (issue 6635050)

[dak]

On 2012/10/09 10:03:59, t.daniels_treda.co.uk wrote:
> address@hidden: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:38 AM

> > I think I'll prepare a radical convert-ly-only patch on top of this
> > patch series that demonstrates what "now valid" syntax we _could_ be
> > using/advertising as input if we wanted to.

> It's only right and just that you get first go at suggesting a
> canonical form, and a patch would be a good way of expressing your
> preference.

Well, I am a programmer.  I know what symbols are and what strings are
and can deal with the differences just fine.

The main point of such a radical convert-ly-only patch (which is going
to convert valid syntax into also valid syntax) is to provide one
extreme outlook as a reference point for discussion.  The main
obstacles will be the need to redocument, to rethink, to reeducate,
and to talk with those who have to deal with scores written by others,
and with those who teach others about LilyPond.

In all of those areas my voice carries less rather than more weight
than that of others.

> >> Let's get all the syntax changes incorporated in 2.17,
> >> then we can agree an immutable set ready for release 3.
> >
> > "Immutable" as "we guarantee we will be able to process this" rather
> > than "we guarantee we will write our scores to have input looking
like
> > that"?

> I meant the former; the latter would be just an aspiration.  As with
> the documentation, this will need an agreement on the canonical form.

Perhaps \displayLilyMusic and its underlying primitives at some point
of time will need to allow specifying a preferred printing style to
use.

At least those that use \displayMusic and its ilk for harvesting
LilyPond's interpretation of an input file will not be affected.


http://codereview.appspot.com/6635050/