[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"? |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:31:21 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:24:01PM +0100, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Neil Puttock <address@hidden> wrote:
> > A good reason would be that it would allow \relative to be removed
> > from the parser: currently we need two parser rules to cater for both
> > cases, whereas deprecating \relative { } would allow the command to be
> > implemented as a music function instead.
>
> Please, please don't. To me, having the ability to use \relative
> without specifying a pitch is (and should remain) a feature, not a
> bug. Yeah, I know, that requires parsing, yadda yadda. We can live
> with it.
We can also live without it. If it simplifies the parser without
impacting the program functionality at all, I think it's worth it.
Opinions to the contrary will be considered by people who have
worked on the parser.
- Graham
- why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Mark Polesky, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Graham Percival, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Mats Bengtsson, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, David Kastrup, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Neil Puttock, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Valentin Villenave, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Neil Puttock, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Valentin Villenave, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Neil Puttock, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Valentin Villenave, 2009/12/15
Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, James Bailey, 2009/12/15