Re: film score example

[Janek Warchoł]

2013/9/15 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>> As far as i see, implementing this with some reasonable and
>> user-friendly syntax would require a substantial discussion.  We tried
>> to discuss these "GLISS" things last September, but the outcome was
>> somewhat discouraging...
>
> The "discussion" in one prong centered on the topic of tieing down the
> syntax where no further changes would be allowed even when they make
> sense, and on another prong focused on proposing syntactical constructs
> that did not fit with the existing syntax while not offering any
> tangible benefits over using music functions

Yeah, i know that.  That's what i mean by "_tried_ to discuss" and
"somewhat discouraging", and that's why i avoid trying to restart
these discussions.

>> I think this has to wait until we have more people experienced with
>> parser work (yes, this means an indefinite amount of time... :/)
>
> Shrug.  You can already write things like
> [lilypond snippet]

Uh, have you actually *looked* at the snippet i've linked to?
(http://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/blob/master/input-shorthands/articulations-not-aligned-with-notes.ly)
It shows your function, which i've kept safe since you've written it
the first time.  It is attributed to you.

> so we have several tools in place for turning LilyPond into Perl
> _without_ needing to tamper with the parser.  But there is no actual
> _need_ to turn LilyPond into Perl in order to do useful work with it.

So it seems that you, Kieren and me agree on one thing: the "at"
function you provided works, but isn't very
readable/straightforward/non-cryptic/you-name-it.
I would love to be able to do what this function does but with a more
straightforward and readable syntax.  As far as i understood your
comments from last year' discussions, such changes probably cannot be
done without parser changes.  Pity, but we have to live with that...

best,
Janek