Re: Music function extension...

[Valentin Villenave]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:29 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Perhaps I have not put myself forward reasonably clearly: the idea was
> not just to use a predicate in the function signature, but to let that
> predicate be special-cased in the parser.  The function expands to a
> number of tokens representing the signature constituents (that is
> already being done, we just need another token type), and then those
> signature tokens are used for interpreting the actually upcoming tokens.

Then we'd end up breaking all backwards compatibility with the old

\relative { c' d e }

syntax, wouldn't we? (Since \relative would expect a pitch, not a
music expression.)

Besides, apart from \relative and \transpose, how many actual commands
would require a pitch argument? For all other commands, especially
music-functions, the ability to have an argument that's either a
single note or a whole music expression is a (really really nice)
feature, not a bug :)

Whilst (I think) I understand your proposal, I'm not sure I see the
advantages it would bring; could you give us some examples? From a
user point of view, what difference would it make? (Other than
possibly making the syntax slightly less fault-tolerant?)

Regards,
Valentin.