On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>>> I don't think that distributing ( and ) between standalone event and >>>>> post-event respectively is a concept that will carry the day >>>>> sufficiently to be given a chance at a comeback. It would make >>>>> (c (d) e) >>>>> visually confusing. While neither the current >>>>> c( d)( e) >>>>> nor the standalone event version >>>>> (c )(d )e >>>>> will win a price for prettiness, they both beat (c (d) e) in conveying >>>>> meaning rather than looking pleasing. >>> >>> What about considering ( as a post-event and ) as a standalone event ? >>> c( )d( )e is symmetric and very clear.
c()d()e is a pain in the ass, and we got rid of it in the 1.8-2.0 syntax change. It is a pain in the ass, because when copying music, you have to remember to put some adornments (ie. the ')' ) before the note, while most go after the note. With everything postfix, things are both easier to parse in LilyPond, and easier to type for humans. -- 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
