[moving to -devel] On Monday 08 January 2007 09:30, Mats Bengtsson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Increasing the number of different argument types for music functions > > would almost certainly be extremely useful for users, who, judging from > > this mailing list, seem to have an unlimited imagination when it comes to > > wanting to be able to extend LP syntax. > > I doubt that the number of argument types is any major problem. The
I disagree: I think it would be useful to have more argument types; this would make it possible to soft-code more of the commands that now are hard-coded in the parser. Also, more argument types would make it possible to implement some functions more cleanly, which makes the lily<->scheme connection easier to understand (it is not very clean to say \myFunction s2. if you mean \myFunction 2., IMHO) I have been thinking; I see two ways to make durations work as function arguments: - Forbid space between pitch and duration in notes; create separate token PITCH_AND_DURATION (it's unclean in a sense, and requires a small hack in the lexer, but might be worth it). It shouldn't be too hard to write a convert-ly rule for this, but in any case it could be wise to postpone this change to v3.0 - Only allow durations as the first few parameters of music functions (so (duration? music?) is allowed, but not (music? duration?)). I think this is a dangerous path, as the rules for which signatures to allow can grow complex if we find more argument types with similar problems. Han-Wen? -- Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
