Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> Since they are the same, I have no idea how you arrive at the conclusion
>> that it is possible to have one work but not the other.
>
> You’re not extrapolating the concept, as I have been asking people to,
> so I’ll once again make it more explicit for you:
>
> I want the user to be able to say
>
> \tweak style #'note-denom \time 3/4.
3/4. has no meaning to the parser (actually the lexer) and I severely
doubt it should. One could easily change this, but such a change does
not appear to fit any sensible rationale outside of a particular ad-hoc
use case. By the way, 4.*3 _does_ have a concrete meaning to the lexer
and could be used to convey a similar concept until the next exception
is invented.
> or
> \tweak style #'note-denom \time #'(3 . "4.")
A string instead of a duration appears to be quite unnatural.
> or
> \tweak style #'note-denom \time #'(3 . {4.})
You cannot change the syntax of Scheme parsing. What would work as
input is #(cons 3 #{4.#}) or #`(3 . ,#{4.#}), neither of which are cause
for celebration. They could be generated using a convenience function
like proposed by Aaron.
> Unless I’ve totally misunderstood this thread, none of the three
> inputs typed above will work without parser changes, possible
> backwards compatibility problems, etc. But I’m happy for you to tell
> me that I’m wrong, and that one of them can work with minimal
> developmental effort.
It's not just developmental effort that is involved here but also utter
disregard for language coherence and followup problems for the sake of
an outlier application.
Removing you from the list of recipients since direct mail to you
bounces anyway and including you would likely cause the list server to
not deliver a copy to you, turning the purpose of including you in the
list of recipients on its head.
--
David Kastrup
