On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> One rather sobering consequence is that any command accepting a grob >>> specification will _not_ be able to take a proper string generated in >>> Scheme using #... for it. It will always require at least a _list_ of >>> strings. This is consistent with 2.16 behavior of \override/\revert etc >>> where you had to at least use $... to get a string into this place (it >>> is not consistent with the current more lenient 2.17 behavior, but it is >>> not likely anybody noticed so far). >> >> I don't understand this part. Small example please? > > Assuming \override-like-function is defined with an argument of type > symbol-list?, you get > > \override-like-function #"Slur" ... -> argument error > \override-like-function #"Voice" . #"Slur" -> syntax error > \override-like-function "Slur" ... -> #'(Slur) > \override-like-function "Voice" . "Slur" ... -> #'(Voice Slur) > \override-like-function Slur ... -> #'(Slur) > \override-like-function Voice.Slur ... -> #'(Voice Slur) > \override-like-function $"Slur" ... -> #'(Slur) > \override-like-function $"Voice" . $"Slur" ... -> #'(Voice Slur) > > #xxx tells LilyPond "please use xxx unchanged without any > context-dependent magic". > > Currently \override _itself_ will accept #"Slur" as one form of a > specification, but that behavior is not older than a few weeks, so it is > unlikely anybody depends on it, and it would probably make sense to stop > it from accepting things that a musicfunction-based simulation would > have no access to.
Ah, so it's about cases when someone wants to manipulate the Grob argument using Scheme. >> Overall LquiteGTM. > > Hey, I have not even _started_ with issue/review, so merging is still a > bit away. I am just in the state where all regtests pass after a set of > back-and-forth commits and I decided to do everything almost, but not > quite, entirely unlike before. > > So I have some heavy rebasing to do, and then rewrite, and then it makes > some sense talking again about this. I was just putting forth some > preliminary views of what I am doing Yeah, i just meant "go ahead". best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel