On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > It wouldn't have worked but you used to rely on it?
This is because I tried to come up with a minimal example (my code is a tad more complex and *did* work). > Huh? That is just the old well-known premature evaluation order timing > problem that $ has inherited from #. > > Write #(eval-string ... instead and the example presumably does what you > want. Unfortunately, it does not. > It looks like you complain that something that did not work before now > can be kept from working when you rewrite it in a special discouraged > and completely unnecessary way that is documented to work just as badly > as # did before my changes. > > If that's the worst effect on your scores you can come up with, I can > live with that. > > Apparently I lack the imagination to understand the nature of your > problem given this example. Can you find an example that is better > suited to my limited capacities? > > Or do you actually _rely_ on the wrong evaluation order for some strange > reason? If you do, you'll be able to use $ (possibly in connection with > *unspecified* to avoid interpretation) to get things evaluated in the > old unnatural order. > > -- > David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
