David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > >> "Keith OHara" <k-ohara5...@oco.net> writes: >> >>> It would be good to warn people that optional arguments must come >>> immediately before an argument that will be read in LilyPond syntax, >>> so that the parser knows which argument is missing. >> >> I'll take a look whether just implementing this predicate-based >> backtracking for optional-Scheme-before-Scheme is feasible on the >> current code base: in the long run, I'll make this much more reliable. > > You could try the following patch.
Try the dev/syntax branch instead. It should work rather close to what you have expected from reading the docs. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
