Re: Let ', ' separate symbol lists like '.' does (issue 290490043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2016/03/08 22:42:55, dan_faithful.be wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2016, at 13:17 , mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> >
> > Description:
> > Let ',' separate symbol lists like '.' does
> >
> > While the dotted list syntax is natural for hierarchical paths like
for
> > \override and \revert, it is less natural in cases that may now be
> > written as
> >
> >    \keepWithTag violin,flute,oboe { c''’ }
> >

> Based on my hasty scan of this change, it looks like you’ve made comma
and dot
> interchangeable.

Correct.

> So it would be valid to write

>     \keepWithTag violin.flute,oboe …

> If that’s the case, it’s weird.

Then don't write it.

> If the problem is that ‘.’ implies hierarchy, then in addition to
making it
> possible to define a comma-separated symbol list, wouldn’t it be
helpful to
> require a comma-separated list for non-hierarchical arguments and a
> dot-separated list for hierarchical arguments?

The resulting Scheme data is the same so you cannot write a music
function predicate distinguishing the two.

> And would we ever want to express a non-hierarchical list of
hierarchical
> lists?

Possibly, but then reverting to Scheme and its properly parenthesized
expressions is saner.

My actual secret motivation arose in connection with subproperties that
can be numerical.  So numbers (at least positive integers) can become
members of lists, and entering something like 4.5 is a no-go.  4,5 is
fine, in comparison.  That allows for

    \time 3,2 5/4

which seems nice but also the only function right now taking a
number-list? argument.  So that's not much of a justification.

However, I consider \keepWithTag violin.flute.oboe weird as well, so
having a differently flavored syntactic sugar for it just seems more
appropriate.

It's conceivable to _not_ allow , for overrides/reverts only.  But then
having \override forbid , while \propertyOverride allows it: how would
you document that?

https://codereview.appspot.com/290490043/