On 11/6/21, 3:24 PM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Lukas-Fabian Moser"
<lilypond-user-bounces+carl.d.sorensen=gmail....@gnu.org on behalf of
l...@gmx.de> wrote:
> \relative {
> \alterBroken #'padding #'(1 7) Staff.OttavaBracket
> \ottava 1 c''''1 \break
> c2 2
> }
I continue my lonely crusade against the hash-tick-combinations that I
found so daunting when I learned LilyPond and which are needed much less
often today:
\relative {
\alterBroken padding #'(1 7) Staff.OttavaBracket
\ottava 1 c''''1 \break
c2 2
}
I love the idea that we can eliminate the hash-tick for padding.
I don't think we should eliminate the hash-tick for the values. The
documentation for \alterBroken says that values is a list (and that means a
Guile list). #'(1 7) is a Guile list. 1,7 is not (although the parser turns
it into one). It is straightforward to learn that #'(1 7) is a Guile list;
it's not nearly so straightforward to understand all of the parsing magic that
happens.
If at any point in an input file, 1,7 will be interpreted as a list #'(1 7),
and 1.5,10.3 will always be interpreted as #'(1.5 10.3), and 1, 7 will be
interpreted the same as 1,7 I will withdraw my objection to this usage in
documentation.
Thanks,
Carl
