Re: Why no numbers allowed in variables?

[Thomas Morley]

Am Mi., 3. Okt. 2018 um 00:38 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Am Di., 2. Okt. 2018 um 23:17 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> >
> >> So what is wrong with using \"var2" or \var.2 ?
> >
> > As a side note.
> >
> > I wasn't aware a comma works as well
> > qwerty,2 = "bar"
>
> That's likely a side effect of comma-separated lists having been made
> identical to dot-separated ones in most respects so that you can write
> stuff like
>
> \keepWithTag violI,violII ...
>
> where a dot looks awkward.  Feels like "don't go there" syntax, really.
>
> > Although, while calling it, you _must_ use the dot
> > \new Lyrics \lyricmode { \qwerty.2 }
>
> That's sort of ugly, indeed.  Probably because , can be an octave
> marker, so if the identifier is a pitch...  But of course a similar
> reasoning would hold when the identifier is a duration followed by a
> dot.
>
> And admittedly, with the _current_ grammar, treating '.' and ',' equal
> in that context does not trigger a warning.  However, here clearly the
> "hierarchical" interpretation is given rather than the "list of equals"
> and so I am queasy about fudging this option into the grammar when I
> don't have a good feeling about what price may be to pay for it in
> future and I don't see a real use case where that grammar would be the
> preferred one.
>
> --
> David Kastrup

It was an observation, not a proposal.
Speaking only for myself, I can perfectly life without the
comma-syntax in definitions and their calls.
The dot feels more natural for me anyway.
But again, that's only me.

Cheers,
  Harm