[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 | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/