[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax? |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:55:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:42:47PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> I am currently trying to make music functions more powerful, in
> particular their argument predicates. Also I am trying to relieve the
> parser from responsibilities.
Looks basically good to me. GLISS was never planned to tackle
scheme stuff, and waiting for GLISS 2 would take 2 years or more
at our current rate of progress. I see no reason to postpone this
change for that long.
> Now I have a possibly slightly contentious change... I want to let { }
> mimic the new functionality of #{ #} instead of creating sequential
> music unconditionally. That means the following:
>
> previously equivalent to now equivalent to
> { \with ... } syntax error context-modification
> { c4 } \sequential { c4 } simple-music
What happens if somebody writes
{ \with foo c4 \with bar d4 }
?
Cheers,
- Graham
- How do feel people about the following change in syntax?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/12
- Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/12
- Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/18
- Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/18
- Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/18
- Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19