Re: markup-command and markup-command-list signatures

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>>
>>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>>> markup in the arguments.  Anything else?
>>
>> I'd say, a markup-list command signature should follow the pattern:
>>
>>   scheme* markup* markup-list*
>>
>> that is, any number of scheme arguments, then any number of single markup
>> arguments, then any number of markup-list arguments, even though I don't
>> know if having several markup list arguments is useful or not (and if it's
>> doable).
>
> AFAICR the ordering is just there for syntax consistency. If you can
> make a patch that generalizes markup argument handling like the
> argument handling for music functions, that would be awesome.

Well, they need to be in order yet.  But other than that, the dependency
appears to be gone.

Check out <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/969046>

Should I post the patch series to the list?

-- 
David Kastrup