Re: Syntax change proposal:

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:03:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> It's much simpler than that.  Expressions are "greedy": what can become
> a part of them, will.

...
yuck?

> \displayMusic c4-3
> 
> is existing syntax.  Long-existing syntax.  A total nuisance to support.
> But it is not like there is much choice involved here.  It has been
> around eternities.  Do you think all the backtracking folderol and
> mode-switching and token-juggling that is going on in the parser
> bypassing the basic LALR(1) algorithm has been implemented because I
> consider it fun?

yuck.

Quick off-the-cuff estimate: ignoring all user code, what would we
lose if we forced expressions to explicitly require arguments,
i.e.
  \displayMusic { c4-3 }
  \displayMusic ( c4-3 )

(ignore the symbol-clash between existing uses of {}() )

- Graham