Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:

> Manual writers:  can we make up our minds here? I've always been
> against frivolous syntax for shortcuts (one example in particular is
> the "q" for repetition).  Why do we put in "q" for users to save some
> keystrokes, and at the time propose to require a mostly redundant '-'
> in front of zillions of postevents?

Right, and getting rid of q would be quite hard.  Why not have your
favourite editor (Emacs in lilypond-mode, JEdit or Frescobaldi) do
the right thing, ie, copy the previous note/chord when you type q?

The introduction of q says: we favour writing over reading.  What
do we find important?  Better readability, saving keystrokes,
stability...?

> The question is starting off on from the wrong premise.
>
> * the command is called \parenthesize. It's a verb, and I don't think
> we have any postfix verbs

Fortunately, we probably chose verbs for music functions, although I'm
not sure all music functions are verbs?

Wouldn't it be helpful if from the syntax one could tell functions from
postfix operators simple statements?  In most languages function
invocations are easy to spot.  I think in Perl you can have functions
look like dead statements, but that's probably just making the argument
better.

Jan
-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl