Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:39:46 -0400, David a dit : > I'm a little bit worried about the architectural implications of this > entire line of discussion. I mean, lilypond syntax is already a bit > of a frankenstein monster of mixed TeX and scheme. I think > encouraging too much embedded scheme is an approach which has the > potential to make lilypond source files unreadable. From a language > point of view, by which I mean the lilypond language, I think it would > be cleaner to have separate scheme extension modules which define new > lilypond commands and are loaded via some kind of \import "module.scm" > or some such.
> Or am I just crazy? Does everyone else think this is the right way to > go? There may be More Than One Way(tm) to do things. I'm just investigating a path, which may lead nowhere. I can't agree however with the argument: potentially unreadable/dangerous/whatever. This feature is intended to ease the creation of commands (by using more LilyPond syntax and less Scheme), which in turn make your lilypond score lighter, thus more readable. nicolas _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
