[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