[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions
From: |
Jan Nieuwenhuizen |
Subject: |
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Sep 2012 09:46:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) |
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> I have become convinced that optional, unnamed arguments are not a
> happy design decision, in any language. In Lily it's particularly
> problematic, since we don't group function parameters.
If we start doing this, that would solve the several of the issues
raised. It would move a bit away from the `lets remove all red tape'
path that we (I?) embarked on previously.
There are two commonly used ways of grouping function parameters,
instead of
\relative { a \parenthesize b c }
we could have something* like
(relative { a (parenthesize b) c })
relative ({a parenthesize (b) c})
I don't think there are easy ways to combine or drop ( and }, ie have
something like
{relative a b c}
foo = relative
{foo a b c}
Or the C-style equivalents.
Jan
() will probably not work of course because they're slur events
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, (continued)
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Joe Neeman, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Joe Neeman, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/04
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/09/05
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/05
- Re: preliminary GLISS discussions, David Kastrup, 2012/09/04
Re: preliminary GLISS discussions,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <=