Re: Possible feature request for 'q' shorthand or tie syntax

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>>> So, i still think that we shouldn't allow "c2 4 4" despite some
>>> really nice benefits it could bring us.
>> 
>> Well, it won't affect previously valid programs.  And it would have
>> some nice side effects, including
>>
>>   c4~ | 1~ | 2.
>>
>> with or without bar checks or spaces, and reasonably straightforward
>> underpinnings and semantics.
>
> So let's keep that as one of the first results of our GLISS
> discussion, together with your suggestions for improved syntax of
> \tempo.

I think it has a somewhat reasonable chance of being implementable.  It
would certainly take quite a bit of shaking out ambiguities, though.
Particularly in situations lacking context, like in #{ #} and on the
right side of assignments and as function argument it might prove hard
to get really satisfactorily consistent and understandable behavior.

And I don't want to introduce it myself before I get the whole function
call/identifier area to a state I consider a stable basis for further
work.

-- 
David Kastrup