Re: [GSoC] Proposal: Modular LilyPond Parser (C++)

On 2026-03-11 19:37, C. Stroppel wrote:

> Three arguments support doing it this way in my lexer:
...
>      2. Stabilizing the syntax by recognizing more literals in the 
> lexer.
...
 > I will describe the planned architecture in more detail in the coming 
days.

It's not clear to me what "this way" is or in what sense the syntax is 
currently unstable; however, that shouldn't be too surprising since 
there is approximately one person who understands most of the current 
language processing, and probably a couple of others who probably 
understand a large part of it, and I'm not one of them.  (I can have an 
intelligent conversation about it, but I'm not like a fish in water.)

I'm glad to hear about ideas for simplification, and I think it's good 
to consider even radical changes when it is done earnestly and dilgently.

Beyond your vision of the ideal design, many people in this forum will 
be more concerned with whether they would still be able to extend 
LilyPond as they currently can (e.g., defining their own functions, 
creating music expressions with immediate Scheme code) and what would be 
the experience of an advanced user or library developer converting an 
old score to the language you have in mind.

Regards,
-- 
Dan