On 9/27/21, 3:52 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
<lilypond-devel-bounces+carl.d.sorensen+digest=gmail....@gnu.org on behalf of
d...@gnu.org> wrote:
Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> writes:
> is not entirely true: once a function is defined, it can be
> relied on internally. Imagine my embarrassment when I had to
> explain on -user-fr the cause of the error occurring with
> the code (minimized here):
>
> cons = \markup \tiny "conséquent"
But doesn't this redefine the scheme symbol 'cons ?
Carl
>
> {
> \stemDown
> c'2^\cons
> \undo \stemDown
> c'2
> }
That code works fine here and produces the expected result:
