On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> \tempo \markup{ Presto } 4. = 172 ~ 188
>>> c1 c
>>> }
>>
>> While this might be a mess for the parser to sort out it is perfectly
>> understandable for a musician trying to write his/her music.
This is also the danger of having broad discussions over syntax.
Everyone and their dog has an opinion of what syntax should look like,
because an opinion is easy to form about
172 -- 178 vs.
172 ~ 178 vs.
{ \tempo 4=72 \tempoMarkup \markup { \noteMarkup #"4" = 172 - 178 } }
and whether to allow
\relative { c d }
as a short hand for
\relative c' { c d }
on the basis of how "intuitive" it looks. See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_Law_of_Triviality
Few people understand how to implement this in a sane way, and even
fewer understand what kind of pandora's box such decisions may open (I
don't count myself in the latter group). For an illustrative example
of what can go wrong with lots of well-intentioned decisions are
stacked together, have a look at the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yZHbh396rc
In the end, each syntax is a compromise between what you allow for
expressivity, and how much you disallow to stop the user from shooting
himself in the foot. If you decide to "reinvent" the syntax, you are
only moving about the compromise, closing off one nest of rats in
exchange for opening a can of worms.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
