Re: SCM-ification of parser

[Erik Sandberg]

On 5/18/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> Erik Sandberg schreef:

> > If we use a separate module for syntax expressions, why not just say foo?
> > e.g.:
> > (sequential-music .. )
> > for a syntax expression that represents (and, incidentally, produces music
> > which represents) sequential music.
>
> because we already have those, and we risk compatibility breakage if we
> use them to hook into the parser.

But the other sequential-music is defined in a different module, so
there should be no problems with namespace clashes, or?

> >>    (ly:parser-set-syntax 'music-sequence my-music-sequencer)
> >
> > I don't understand. Why would the parser be interested in knowing which syntax
> > functions that exist? AFAICS it should be sufficient for the parser to just
>
> 1. because the parser also determines which ones are called.

how? According to my plan, the functions do that themselves (by being
either macros or functions). Perhaps my plan differs from yours?

> We could
> use this to generate documentation for the syntax/grammar automatically
> (something which is now done manually in the docstrings of the music
> types).

Well, that makes sense.

> 2. because it would allow a user to override an individual syntax
> production rule cleanly.

OK. Why would a user want to do that?

Erik