On Tue 13 Dec 2011 17:08, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
> The current implementation wraps scraps of code into (lambda () ...) and
> executes them on-demand. So the expectation is that embedded Scheme
> code can have side-effects on the lexical environment like with
>
> (let ((xxx 2))
> #{ #(set! xxx (1+ xxx)) #})
This closure strategy sounds fine, no? It's what I would do, I think,
if I understand the problem correctly.
I thought that you were saying that lilypond code could reference and
set Scheme lexical variables. I was also under the impression that
lilypond code could define lexical variables. If neither of these are
true, then closures sound like a fine solution to me.
Am I missing something? It has been a long thread :)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
