[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: message passing...

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: message passing...
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:00:47 +0200 (CEST)

address@hidden writes:
> > overload \context, or should I add \contextdefinition?
> > 
> Is it really necessary at all to call \translator in the definition
> phase?

This discussion is tilting towards `Could you implement feature XXXX?
It is really easy, just extend the syntax to allow YYYY'. In short
yes, I think it is necessary, and if you want to disprove me, go ahead
and show me some code.

> That's a possibility. Another idea is to view lilypond as more of an
> interpreter, parsing would generate 'code' for lilypond commands, such
> as modifying (or completely replacing) the currently active translator
> by another.

I don't want LilyPond to be interpreter, because it implies that Lily
would have a programming language. We're going to extend mudela to be
a programming language.  Perhaps we could provide various parts of
Lily as GUILE procedures , which would result in a scheme programmabel
environment. I do have my reservations whether this would make lily
easier to use.


Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    |

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]