Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes:
> On Aug 29, 2020, at 14:52, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> My own take on it is that \alternative syntax is an abomination and it
>> should likely be more like
>>
>> \repeat volta 40 {
>> ...
>> \alternative { ... }
>> \alternative { ... }
>> \alternative { ... }
>> }
>>
>> since that would avoid several syntactical problems and would allow to
>> produce alternatives by music functions.
>
> I agree, but that's a little too far into fantasy land for me to attempt
> right now. The other stuff proposed so far seems more attainable.
>
> I've been intending to ask you how difficult you think it would be to
> make the parser treat \alternative as a music function whenever it
> does not follow a \repeat {}?
I don't think that makes sense. I'd just remove \alternative as a
reserved word from the parser altogether, give it a music type
representation, and then let some cleanup function put the bits
together (if equivalence in music expressions is wanted, but I am not
sure of that actually).
> I've gotten \alternative << >> working to my satisfaction, but I did
> it by requiring the << >> in the parser. I think it would be nicer if
> something like
>
> \repeat volta 2 {
> ...notes...
> \alternative M
> ...notes...
> }
>
> would call a music function with argument M.
Sure, that should be feasible with an optional argument of type
index-list? or similar.
--
David Kastrup
