Am 07.12.2012 07:43, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Staff "var" { a4 }
>> Staff "var" … or even (?) \var …
>
> Staff and "var" are valid lyrics. Most complex syntactic constructs
> start with a keyword starting with backslash for that reason, or with
> special characters.
I rather meant the necessity of \new and \context, so
\Staff = "var" { a4 }
\Staff = "var" … or even (?) \var …
>> I think it is always better to make the usage of the software easy,
>> than having to explain a lot in the documentation why this has to be
>> done in a complex way (even if it is easy compared to the knowledge of
>> the developers).
>
> "Easy" is not the same as "arbitrary". Your proposal is not anything
> like any other LilyPond construct, so how would a user be able to guess
> and/or remember it?
In my opinion, less words for a correct syntax can be easier learnt by
heart. And in case it is possible to let LilyPond/the parser take
obvious decisions, it would be good to let him do. Then the user would
not have to deal with it. (If there is a valid use case, where one would
like to write \new Staff = "var" having already declared a staff named
"var" then the parser couldn't do that).
>> But probably, I do not know enough about LilyPond to see the reason
>> for this and the drawbacks my suggestion would have (I wrote it,
>> because I see a small chance that it is not totally rubbish ;) ).
>
> Well, it is a bit like closing your eyes and running in order to find a
> better way through the woods than the existing one which one considers
> too winded. Yes, a small chance, but it is somewhat optimistic to
> assume that one will get through and that the original pathmakers were
> just too stupid to see the simpler way.
>
:) That was a good description – I will be a bit more quiet with such
“ideas”.
Cheers,
Joram
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
