Re: message passing...

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> > overload \context, or should I add \contextdefinition?
> > 
> 
> Is it really necessary at all to call \translator in the definition
> phase?

This discussion is tilting towards `Could you implement feature XXXX?
It is really easy, just extend the syntax to allow YYYY'. In short
yes, I think it is necessary, and if you want to disprove me, go ahead
and show me some code.

> That's a possibility. Another idea is to view lilypond as more of an
> interpreter, parsing would generate 'code' for lilypond commands, such
> as modifying (or completely replacing) the currently active translator
> by another.

I don't want LilyPond to be interpreter, because it implies that Lily
would have a programming language. We're going to extend mudela to be
a programming language.  Perhaps we could provide various parts of
Lily as GUILE procedures , which would result in a scheme programmabel
environment. I do have my reservations whether this would make lily
easier to use.

-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/