Re: slur syntax

[David Kastrup]

Gianmaria Lari <address@hidden> writes:

> Yes! Thank you Peter (and Urs), I think now it's clear!!!! 
>
> Lilypond use a "postfix" syntax. To apply a function 'f' to the note 'a' the
> lilypond syntax is "a \f" and not viceversa. Because the open parenthese is
> like a function (a function that marks the first item) it must be written as
> for all the other function: after the note.
>
> Of course, everything is possible, and we could make the lilypond parser
> more complex and use the other notation for the slur issue. But this has
> been considered not important :)

No, that's not it.  The parser is flexible enough to support this (or
the reverse) out of the box without batting an eye:

\version "2.18.0"

\score { { c'4( e')( g'2) } }

lp=(
rp=)

"("=<>\lp

\score { { (c'4 (e') g'2) } }

"("=\lp
")"=<>\rp

\score { { c'4( )e'( g'2) } }

It just turns out that it is a bad idea.  Your favored input syntax is
in the middle.  That's not actually readable for the case illustrated
here since it suggests a nesting that isn't there.

Another input syntax is at the bottom.  This syntax has actually been
LilyPond's syntax until version 1.7.17 or so (I see regtests changing in
that version for both [...] and ...( )... here, resulting in the same
basic syntax for either construct).

You'll likely find a discussion on the developer list in 2003 or so.

-- 
David Kastrup