[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Optional function argument semantics: taste poll
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: Optional function argument semantics: taste poll |
Date: |
Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:54:30 +0100 (CET) |
> Basically, I have two choices:
a, b, and c :-)
> a) don't try to match, optional fractions are not accepted in wide
> form.
> b) when a predicate does not match an INTEGER x, I check whether it
> matches (cons x 1), and if it does, I continue parsing on the
> assumption that a fraction is likely to occur. If this
> assumption is wrong, I get a syntax error since x can't be backed
> up once I looked at the next lookahead token and discovered it is
> not /.
> c) let fraction? as well as Lilypond interpret integers as x/1 when
> required.
I prefer a).
Werner