> . . . I'd always prefer extensions that do not change the syntax.
I can't argue with that preference. But in
> >\foo c \nul 4. % \nul would be a sort of syntactic "breath mark"
the "\nul" would not constitute a change in syntax -- "\nul" would simply
be another LilyPond keyword.
\nul m
When I was writing the Antlr version of the parser I realized that extending
the grammar in dozens of ways makes much more complicatons and unreadability
than you gain in compactness. Actually I don't like that I almost have to
reimplement LilyPond just to be able to decide if an input is syntac
> >\foo c \nul 4. % \nul would be a sort of syntactic "breath mark"
> >\foo c \ 4. % \ -- same idea as \nul (short, but maybe risky?)
> >\foo c \\ 4.% \\ -- same as \nul
> >\foo c =4. % = prefixed to any expression: "this is separate item"
> . . . If we should add a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Increasing the number of different argument types for music functions
would almost certainly be extremely useful for users, who, judging from
this mailing list, seem to have an unlimited imagination when it comes to
wanting to be able to extend LP syntax.
I doubt th
