Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Erik Sandberg]

On Friday 05 January 2007 09:22, address@hidden wrote:
> > . . . \tupletSequence 2/3 {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}}
> > would just be a shorthand for
> > \tuplet 2/3 {c d e} \tuplet 2/3 {f g a} \tuplet 2/3 {b c d}
>
> That would add a big semantic burden to the meaning of "{" and "}".
> Currently {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}} means the same thing as
> {c d e f g a b c d}.  

It's not a problem. The { m1 m2 m3 } syntax is used for repeat alternatives 
already, and the meaning is very clear: Each music expression between the 
outer { } is a separate argument. Note also that the tupletSequence function 
would be implemented entirely in Scheme, the parser would not be modified. 
Examples:

> I would hate to have to write the parser that would 
> figure out (reliably) what
>    {{c d e} {f g} {a b c}}
\tuplet {c d e} \tuplet {f g} \tuplet {a b c}

> or
>    {{c d e} {{f g} a} b c}
\tuplet {c d e} \tuplet {{f g} a} \tuplet b \tuplet c

> or
>    {{c8 d e} {f4 g a}}
\tuplet {c d e} \tuplet {f4 g a}
> mean (as arguments to \tupletSequence).  And if
>    \seq = {{a8 b c} {d8 e f}}
> then, since LP macros are *not* string macros, what will the parser
> do with the argument
>    { {g8 f e} \seq {b8 a g} }
\tuplet {g f e} \tuplet \seq \tuplet {b a g}

-- 
Erik