"dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us" wrote:
> a b c d\lefty e f g
>
> (above) \lefty has an intuitive association with the d.
>
> a b c \righty d e f g
>
> (above) \righty is intuitivly ambiguous,
> (below), \righty has a false intuitive association with the 'c'
>
> a b c\righty d
This is an interesting point.
> If all \foo were right-associative it would be easy to read them. Is it
> possible to make monadic operators right-associative so as to end this
> confusion? Yes, i realize this could have a nasty impact; if done at all
> it would mean devising a new set of right-associative operators and
> deprecating the old ones (never eliminating them of course, such being the
> fate of deprecated stuff).
Imagine how convoluted the convert-ly rules would need to be... ugh.
> BTW, the average user lumps functions and operators together in his mind
> as thingys with similar syntax (\foo) that 'affect' notes. Unless the
> documentation stresses this issue with ample illustrations which are
> commented to this point it will remain a confusing muddle (do you _recall_
> which C operator binds more strongly, left-shift, or prefix-increment?).
I was thinking about this earlier today, what are LilyPond's
"operators"? I thought they might be these*:
- -- / /+ : < << > >> \! \ \( \) \+ \< \> \[ \]
! ' ( ) * + , - . / : = ? [ ] ^ _ { | } ~
Anyone know?
- Mark
* there are single and double angle-brackets here. Recently I've
noticed some e-mail clients and/or mailing list archives do
weird things with them (like removing them). Just in case you
think I accidentally left something out!
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
