Well, I'm a bit scared.
It would be very valuable, if not only lilypond would be the only parser
on the world which can parse a ly file.
For example I had a very hard time to create my preliminary java parser,
because lilypond's syntax is so free and so dynamic (the language itself
can be redefined in the source file), that it is almost impossible to
write another parser.
So I see the second benefit as a backdraw, unless we have a way to
"export" the structure to other representations.
Bert
Some benefits:
- It will be easy to make \relative a music macro, by defining relative as a
Scheme macro.
- The parser will be reduced to a thin layer of syntactic sugar, so a large
portion of parser.yy can be moved to scheme. Application of music functions
and dereferencing of variables is completely outsourced to guile.
- For those who want to do programming using lily syntax, it will be easy to
export Scheme functions and macros to the lily parser at runtime. This will
probably reduce the number of feature requests that come to our mailing
lists.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
