Re: Invisible notes, Scheme contexts

[Trevor Bača]

On 12/13/05, Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden> wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I wonder whether this should be changed too. This would mean that
> >
> >    \clef alto
> >    \clef "alto"
> >
> > becomes
> >
> >    \clef #"alto"
> >
> > or
> >
> >    \clef #'alto
> >
> > This will simplify the syntax a bit, at the expense ease of entry.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I see some cases where this would be clearly a win. Few weeks ago, a
> singer asked me to change all alto clefs to treble clefs in a
> voice+piano reduction score. Just redefining the \clef music function
> would have made that really easy and quick.
>
> The more music functions there are, and the less hardcoded syntax is,
> the more extensible and flexible LilyPond is. Ideally, even \include
> should be some kind of (not only-)music function, so that users could
> define their own \include version (for including different files
> depending on some parameters for instance, or adding a path).

I agree, if for no other reason than to reduce the number of flips
over to the manual while inputting.

Of course, it probably would be better for *everything* to be

  \command "arg"

removing the kinda alien-looking (if you're not a scheme programmer)
octothorpes and apostrophes more or less entirely (and, therefore,
maybe insulating the average user from having to remember what's
scheme and what's not.) The plus to that method would be a much more
uniform syntax with fewer magic characters; the minus is that, well,
90% of all the directives in every .ly file written in a version prior
to the change would break.


--
Trevor Bača
address@hidden