On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes:
>> I'm not sure if i understand you correctly.
>>
>> Currently (checked with 2.17.3) i can write this in LilyPond code
>> (verbatim):
>
> It likely does not pass 2.17.6.
good to know.
>> {
>> \override Stem #'my-funky-property = #5
>> }
>> LilyPond will complain about an unknown property name, but the
>> property will be set anyway, and i'll be able to access it later.
>
> Unless it makes LilyPond crash.
>
>> I like this possibility. Is this what you call "using properties
>> before defining them"?
>
> That's not even "before defining them" but rather "without defining
> them". Properties are typechecked, and they are maintained in a stack
> starting from the Global context. We have far enough possibilities to
> let LilyPond crash with segmentation faults from bad code, and I am not
> interested in creating more of them. In general, if LilyPond has no
> idea how to do something reasonably, it is much better if it does
> nothing at all rather than letting its internals be poked with a stick
> on the assumption that somebody must know what he is doing.
ok, i see that doing what i demonstrated was a bad idea. Is it
possible to define (create) a new property from the user level? I
don't recall any information about this.
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
