> In short, you and I simply > disagree on what is satisfactory for syntax.
Well, it seems we already agreed on one satisfactory syntax with the way you finished the script in the other thread, so I suppose it’s not impossible to agree on something ;-). > We just come to LilyPond from two different perspectives. Folks > like me will try to make the best of the existing system, and folks like > you will contribute to improving its syntactic elegance. I hadn’t thought about it that way. I certainly give a lot of importance to syntax. Perhaps I should try to contribute in that territory somehow. Not a being a Scheme wizard limits my powers though. > That said, \with is a powerful construct that need not be relegated to > just context modification. I suppose the \with construct could be extended to uses it doesn’t have right now. But I guess one would need to understand first why isn’t that construction so often required in the first place. > It is good to have the "non-programmer" perspective. I’m glad that’s the case. Thank you for being so helpful with non-programmers like me! :-). Best regards, Martín. On 19. Sep 2020, 17:41 +0200, Aaron Hill <[email protected]>, wrote: > > existing
