Re: lily in scheme

[Stefaan Himpe]

> foo = \notes { c'8( d') e'( f') g'4( a') }
> \score {
>     \notes {
>         \foo
>         {
>           Stem.thickness = 4
>           Slur.transparent = true
>           \foo
>         }
>         \foo
>     }
> }

David,

I too believe that syntax can be made much more
simple and have more uniform look and feel
without introducing ambiguities.
(Although I have not investigated anything, and
undoubtedly there are more
problems than I can foresee right now.)

It could greatly flatten the learning curve by making
it easier to make "educated guesses" on how to tweak scores,
and by not making a new user feel like he has to learn
two new programming languages with completely different
syntax style, too many brackets, weird characters # in unexpected
places, quotes ' , etc.

For the time being, a pragmatic solution (which can give results
in a relatively short time) is to write a separate front-end (in perl, 
python, scheme or whatever) which translates some carefully defined
simplified syntax of your choice into full-blown lily syntax,
maybe with a possibility of embedding "raw" lily-code to retain the
full power of it at all times.

This way the core developpers need not worry too much
about this matter and can concentrate on what they
like best: fix bugs and add new features.

Regards,
Stefaan.