Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:20:43AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> To me, a Grand Input Syntax "fixing" of LilyPond, would amount to
>> creating a syntax that strictly separates parsing and interpretation.
>> This implies not only rethinking  a lot of syntax, but also it means
>> letting go of some of the flexibility and conciseness of the current
>> format.
>
> Ok, consider one single "fix".  Change:
>   {  \[ c'2     d' \]  }
> into:
>   {     c'2 \[  d' \]  }
>
> The old "enclosing" method of spanners (i.e. beams and slurs in
> lilypond 1.x) is almost completely deprecated now.  Why not take
> the next step and fix ligatures as well?  That would make the
> syntax more consistent.

Sounds good to me.  The disconcerting thing is that I don't see a good
convert-ly rule on the horizon: we should have done this long ago,
together with the rest.  Let me take a look at the parser...

Looks like it would be simple to do, and likely one should also include
\~ (PesOrFlexaEvent).

I don't know the respective input modes and terminology: will there
always be a note to attach all those to?

-- 
David Kastrup