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

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:19:09PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > What happens if somebody writes
> >   { \with foo    c4     \with bar    d4 }
> > ?
> 
> Good catch.  I don't think we want anything but a syntax error here.
> One approach would be not to ignore Scheme expressions in a sequence
> unless they evaluate to "unspecified" or at least a limited set of
> "ignorable" values.

Would it be possible to enforce something like
  {
    { \with foo \with bar ... only \with }
    c4 d4
  }
where the \with stuff needs to happen as the first item inside the
larger expression?  or maybe
  {
    \with { }
    c4 d4
  }
again requiring the \with{} to be the first item (if it exists at
all) ?

Cheers,
- Graham