On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 08:42:43AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > This looks like a syntactic nightmare. You are suggesting
> >
> > c4 c 4 -> c4 c4 c4
> >
> > i.e. making white space syntactically significant.
>
> Honestly, this would be OK with me. How many users are aware that
> `c 4' is the same as `c4' (I wasn't, BTW)? Is this ever documented?
> Do we have a single example which makes use of this syntactic
> possibility?
I wasn't aware of this possibility, but spaces *are* useful for
clarity:
c4->-.( \tweak #'slur-style #'foo \(\cr \tweak #'extra-offset #(3 . 1)
-\markup{ blah }
I'd hate to do this kind of thing without spaces. I mean...
c4->-.(\tweak #'slur-style #'foo \(\cr\tweak #'extra-offset #(3 . 1)-\markup{
blah }
I'm not certain if this would even compile.
I guess we could say "a whitespace followed by a pitch or duration
signals the beginning of a new note".
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
