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

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> 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?

With what meaning?  Note that currently you can write
#{ \with { ... } #} as a Scheme expression, and get a context
modification.

> or maybe
>   {
>     \with { }
>     c4 d4
>   }
> again requiring the \with{} to be the first item (if it exists at
> all) ?

Again, what meaning?  I think that without extra braces, material should
_fit_ in its context.

-- 
David Kastrup