Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Joe Neeman <address@hidden> wrote:

>> >> To me, a Grand Input Syntax "fixing" of LilyPond, would amount to
>> >> creating a syntax that strictly separates parsing and interpretation.
>> >> This implies not only rethinking  a lot of syntax, but also it means
>> >> letting go of some of the flexibility and conciseness of the current
>> >> format.
>> >
>> > This sound like a Right Thing to do, but i'm not knowledgeable enough
>> > to know what the results would actually be.  Examples appreciated
>> > (hopefully some examples will show in other discussions).
>>
>> Well, one simple consequence would be that one can't define music
>> functions in a document (their definition is interpretation, their use
>> is parsing).
>
>
> With the current syntax, this is certainly true. But if a music function's
> arguments were delimited syntactically somehow then we could parse without
> interpreting any music functions, right?

Correct.


-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen