David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> writes: > >> On 10/19/11 3:26 AM, "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>\void #(hashq-set! ...) >>>\void #(hashq-set! ...) >>> >>>rather than >>> >>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...) >>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...) >>> >>>It's a bit C-ish, but not all that bad, and it fits with >>>define-void-function. >> >> \returnUnspecified #(hashq-set! ...) >> >> \scmUnspecified #(hashq-set! ...) >> >> \ignoreReturn #(hashq-set! ...) >> >> After all I can think of, I think \void is probably the best. > > I am not enthused about this particular consequence of auto-exporting > Scheme expressions. I currently don't see a better way of handling it, > and it has flagged more bad code than false positives when I tried it. > But I would be quite surprised if it did not trigger regressions with > existing previously valid and reasonable code.
An afterthought, however: we do have an inordinate amount of user-level commands that need to be called from Scheme rather than with Lilypond syntax. That does not make sense. Void music functions have been around for eternities, just a bit inconvenient to define, but reasonably documented. Maybe we need a user interface meister that tries to maintain a bit of coherency and sanity when new features get added. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
