Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes: > On 28.12.2015 20:28, Johan Vromans wrote: >> NR refers to >> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/organizing-pieces-with-variables >> which does not mention the quoted syntax, and explicitly disallows dashes > > Ugh, that’s bad. > Especially since it’s an important feature in interlocking Scheme and > LilyPond code. Mind you, I’ve even think it might be better to use the > scheme naming convention lowercase-with-dashes everywhere in LilyPond > code.
Nope. Far too large collision potential with preexisting Scheme identifiers. Often the underlying Scheme functions for some music function are named the same, just with dashes instead of CamelCase. > To be discussed when GLISS finally will get on the table again… To me, the main motivation for changes in syntax is making things work better or more consistently. Unifying LilyPond's idea of valid identifier syntax across modes made a number of things work more reliably and removed strange errors and quirks. But that the conventions are no longer brutally enforced by LilyPond does not render them useless. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
