Separate Syntax for Durations

[Phthalocyanine]

Dear Daniele, Andrea, and friends,

With the strategy, to program parts for bach.score directly by way of its separate inputs, using the "separate" syntax, I am wondering about the most organized and efficient approach.
My basic problem seems to be that in writing this code in a spreadsheet or a code editing platform, no matter how carefully I work, I seem always to be losing track of nested parentheses. Especially, if parts are written for a particular set of measure info, and then time signatures are changed in measure infos, the correlations of durations and their parenthesis can be thrown out of joint with the time signatures quite dramatically, causing confusion about whether syntax errors have been introduced by some type of parameter change or other.
I will add that, for syntaxes pitch, measure info, and extras, I think I am doing fine. The problem is with durations.
It's difficult keeping track of nested parentheses, which go many levels of depth. Opening and closing these levels in a sustained way, first going several levels deeper, then several back "up" in the hierarchy and more shallow, then nesting deeper again, makes for such a barrage of parenthesis that, when combined with the other consideration I mentioned about changing measure info time signatures, and also with the added variables of lingering default values, the possibility of an upper limit on character count within a max message object, and/or whatever other factors I have yet to discover, that would contribute to the overall unwieldiness of the approach, I seem to be making for myself much unnecessary time spent just simply messing about with this approach and its syntax, doubting my comprehension of the durations syntax, rediscovering it all over again, encountering a new syntactic mistake, and so on.
The question is, what would you imagine that the most efficient and organized way of setting up a template and working itinerary so that syntactic errors and confusions are eliminated, and composition proceeds sans creation of unduly messy screen, and confusing edit/copy/paste method back and forth between bach and the designated code editing platform? And corollarily to these concerns, by what syntax can parameters be assigned according to a selected measure or measures? If I want to write a score, proceeding to fill all the score's durations, but then I want to go back and overwrite measures 53 through 57 without having to repaste the entire score to a message box, what is the best solution for a message targeted only at the measure(s) desired to be changed?
Also, what about commenting syntax? If it be a strategy to compose as I am describing, directly by programming the separated syntaxes for all score aspects, it would make sense that commenting should be available. Commenting would be one imagined contribution to the overall solution I seek.

Thanks very much folks! I appreciate your efforts!
Dimitri Fergadis

P.S. The Paypal donations url seems to be broken on my side.

[danieleghisi]

Hi Dimitri,

sorry for late answering.

Thanks for the notification about the Paypal Button. Must have been some worpress quirk, now it seems to be working for me. Can you confirm?

About your problem, I'm not really sure of why you aren't using gathered syntax instead. Picking nth voice will just create nth part, I assume?
This should retain all beamings and parentheses.

Am I overlooking something?
d

[Phthalocyanine]

Andrea, Daniele, and Bach community users,

The Paypal button indeed works now...

During the time since after I raised this composition programming syntax matter, I discovered a sort of lazy approach, in lieu of using the full code targeting diverse bar numbers ; and that is, compose in a separate bach.score of only a single bar, thus minimizing requisite code - and then copy/paste to whatever bar I'm on in the main composition. It's not ideal, but it's not bad either. Likely though Daniele, I will find myself compelled eventually to follow your suggestion about using gathered instead of separate syntax. At which point I will update you with further questions.

All the best,
Dimitri Fergadis

P.S. Andrea, big up to you for the "Who is Fourier" tip. It is verily as you said; entry level and sufficiently deep, both at the same time.