Re: Strings as variable names

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> On 28.12.2015 20:28, Johan Vromans wrote:
>> NR refers to
>> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/organizing-pieces-with-variables
>> which does not mention the quoted syntax, and explicitly disallows dashes
>
> Ugh, that’s bad.
> Especially since it’s an important feature in interlocking Scheme and
> LilyPond code. Mind you, I’ve even think it might be better to use the
> scheme naming convention lowercase-with-dashes everywhere in LilyPond
> code.

Nope.  Far too large collision potential with preexisting Scheme
identifiers.  Often the underlying Scheme functions for some music
function are named the same, just with dashes instead of CamelCase.

> To be discussed when GLISS finally will get on the table again…

To me, the main motivation for changes in syntax is making things work
better or more consistently.  Unifying LilyPond's idea of valid
identifier syntax across modes made a number of things work more
reliably and removed strange errors and quirks.  But that the
conventions are no longer brutally enforced by LilyPond does not render
them useless.

-- 
David Kastrup