Re: How do feel people about the following change in syntax?

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:42:47PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> I am currently trying to make music functions more powerful, in
>> particular their argument predicates.  Also I am trying to relieve the
>> parser from responsibilities.
>
> Looks basically good to me.  GLISS was never planned to tackle
> scheme stuff, and waiting for GLISS 2 would take 2 years or more
> at our current rate of progress.  I see no reason to postpone this
> change for that long.

P.S.: make no mistake: this is a large conceptual change, but if done
correctly, I would expect minimal impact on existing documents.

One thing I like about this is that we currently have
define-music-function, define-event-function, define-scheme-function...
If Scheme can be used for everything, we don't need
define-contextmodification-function and so on.  We don't need
define-markup-function, define-duration-function,
define-pitch-function...

That can of worms can just stay shut.

-- 
David Kastrup