Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> writes:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>
>> I have become convinced that optional, unnamed arguments are not a
>> happy design decision, in any language. In Lily it's particularly
>> problematic, since we don't group function parameters.
>
> If we start doing this, that would solve the several of the issues
> raised.
What issues were raised?
> It would move a bit away from the `lets remove all red tape' path that
> we (I?) embarked on previously.
>
> There are two commonly used ways of grouping function parameters,
> instead of
>
> \relative { a \parenthesize b c }
>
> we could have something* like
>
> (relative { a (parenthesize b) c })
> relative ({a parenthesize (b) c})
>
> I don't think there are easy ways to combine or drop ( and }, ie have
> something like
>
> {relative a b c}
> foo = relative
> {foo a b c}
>
> Or the C-style equivalents.
Who do we think to be doing a favor with that?
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
