In short, you and I simply
disagree on what is satisfactory for syntax.
Well, it seems we already agreed on one satisfactory syntax with the way you finished the script in the other thread, so I suppose it’s not impossible to agree on something ;-).
We just come to LilyPond from two different perspectives. Folks
like me will try to make the best of the existing system, and folks like
you will contribute to improving its syntactic elegance.
I hadn’t thought about it that way. I certainly give a lot of importance to syntax. Perhaps I should try to contribute in that territory somehow. Not a being a Scheme wizard limits my powers though.
That said, \with is a powerful construct that need not be relegated to
just context modification.
I suppose the \with construct could be extended to uses it doesn’t have right now. But I guess one would need to understand first why isn’t that construction so often required in the first place.
It is good to have the "non-programmer" perspective.
I’m glad that’s the case. Thank you for being so helpful with non-programmers like me! :-).
Best regards,
Martín.
On 19. Sep 2020, 17:41 +0200, Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com>, wrote:
existing