Re: Music function extension...

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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.)
>
> Huh?  Why would \relative be affected?
>
>> Besides, apart from \relative and \transpose, how many actual commands
>> would require a pitch argument?
>
> I really don't understand what you are talking about.
>
> I was talking about the ability to _define_ music functions taking a
> pitch argument.  Not about changing existing commands.

So I replaced \relative and \transpose with music functions by now.  Sue
me.

-- 
David Kastrup