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