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

[thomasmorley65]

On 2016/03/08 22:55:51, dak wrote:
> 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.

I firstly had some concerns about problems arising from people being
tempted to write additional spaces after the comma, though with:

blub = #(define-void-function (arg)(list?) (write (map symbol->string
arg)))
\blub foo . bar . buzz

I noticed no problem. Hence I expect no problems with commas as well.

[...]


> 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.


A quick scan through my private functions using number-list? offered
some hits, where it could be a nice input-possibility.

Although I can't review parse-code, I vote for it.
Really nice, especially for number-lists.



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