Re: LilyPond strings and \markup

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 08:47:40PM +1000, Joe Neeman wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 00:59 -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> > Come on, you have to admit that this is terribly confusing! And as
> > far as I can tell, none of this is satisfactorily documented. I'm
> > trying to do something about it, but my goodness, I've already hit
> > the wall on my first datatype.
> 
> I suspect that much of the confusion could be alleviated by modifying
> the parser to allow scalar where embedded_scm is currently required.
> That would remove most (all?) of the cases in which # is required. It's
> possible, however, that this might introduce ambiguities in the parser.

Alternately, we could be stricter about this -- I wouldn't mind if
we insisted that people use
  \override foo #'bar = #5
instead of allowing the non-# form, if then we could state as a
general rule that overrides required a # after the =

I think Mark's doing a good job here, and I second your suggestion
that he learn bison and flex.  We'll need somebody who knows these
things when we start discussing the syntax in GLISS.
(ok, I said that we wouldn't try to standardize the overrides, but
I think that coming up with a general rule about when a # is
required in a lilypond file would be worth it)

Cheers,
- Graham