On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:26 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: >> I assume that this would mean having to use #(define ....) every time >> we wanted to define a variable/command (e.g. notes = { c d e } and red >> = \twear #'color #red). > > Huh? Why?
I must have misunderstood you then. Nevermind that part. >> From a user's point of view that would be both cryptic and a bit >> inconvenient. I consider manupilating variables a fundamental aspect >> of using Lilypond, and its syntax should be as simple as possible. > > I don't understand what you are getting at. The translation between > Scheme identifiers and LilyPond identifiers would be different, but that > does not mean that you have to change any LilyPond code, just Scheme > code. As i've misunderstood you in first place, my comment that you quote is invalid. > The main problem would be that #x and \x would no longer be > interchangeable in most contexts as \x would be equivalent to #$x > (without special interpretation) or to $$x (the first $ being the > "active Scheme" $ inside of LilyPond, the second $ being the new > identifier prefix). I'd need an example to understand/give my opinion on this, but please don't spend too much time explaining it. With regard to Scheme "layer", i trust your opinion more than my own. best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
