[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: slur syntax
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: slur syntax |
Date: |
Sun, 24 May 2015 12:20:17 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Gianmaria Lari <address@hidden> writes:
> Yes! Thank you Peter (and Urs), I think now it's clear!!!!
>
> Lilypond use a "postfix" syntax. To apply a function 'f' to the note 'a' the
> lilypond syntax is "a \f" and not viceversa. Because the open parenthese is
> like a function (a function that marks the first item) it must be written as
> for all the other function: after the note.
>
> Of course, everything is possible, and we could make the lilypond parser
> more complex and use the other notation for the slur issue. But this has
> been considered not important :)
No, that's not it. The parser is flexible enough to support this (or
the reverse) out of the box without batting an eye:
\version "2.18.0"
\score { { c'4( e')( g'2) } }
lp=(
rp=)
"("=<>\lp
\score { { (c'4 (e') g'2) } }
"("=\lp
")"=<>\rp
\score { { c'4( )e'( g'2) } }
It just turns out that it is a bad idea. Your favored input syntax is
in the middle. That's not actually readable for the case illustrated
here since it suggests a nesting that isn't there.
Another input syntax is at the bottom. This syntax has actually been
LilyPond's syntax until version 1.7.17 or so (I see regtests changing in
that version for both [...] and ...( )... here, resulting in the same
basic syntax for either construct).
You'll likely find a discussion on the developer list in 2003 or so.
--
David Kastrup
- slur syntax, Gianmaria Lari, 2015/05/23
- Re: slur syntax, Urs Liska, 2015/05/23
- Re: slur syntax, Gianmaria Lari, 2015/05/23
- Re: slur syntax, Peter Bjuhr, 2015/05/23
- Re: slur syntax, Peter Bjuhr, 2015/05/23
- Re: slur syntax, Gianmaria Lari, 2015/05/23
- Re: slur syntax, Michael Hendry, 2015/05/24
- Re: slur syntax,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: slur syntax, Gianmaria Lari, 2015/05/25