https://codereview.appspot.com/51230043/diff/20001/ly/satb.ly File ly/satb.ly (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/51230043/diff/20001/ly/satb.ly#newcode75 ly/satb.ly:75: #(define-once Key *unspecified*) I don't see that using some Scheme interface rather than providing that facility on the LilyPond level makes a lot of sense. For one thing, this will not overload identifiers defined in the Guile module rather than the parser even though Key = \key\default would do. Let's keep in mind that the whole idea of the satb template is not as much as getting a single job done, but rather for us to start developing a template infrastructure. That means that whenever a particular facility is not available in an immediately useful manner, we want to define it (not in the template, but in LilyPond proper) rather than work around it. The goal is not just that an ordinary user finds it easy to _use_ a particular template, but also that he or she finds it easy to define his own templates. That's what we need to get a template ecosystem off the ground. https://codereview.appspot.com/51230043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
