Simon Albrecht <[email protected]> writes:
> On 08/08/2026 13:50, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2026 15:45, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> bookA = \book { ... }
>>>> bookB = \bookpart { ... }
>>>>
>>>> \book { \bookA ... }
>>>>
>>>> which would mean to create a book as an amended copy of \bookA
>> bookA can just contain common headers and possibly a common introduction
>> for a number of books (like solfeges for soprano, alto, tenor, bass).
>
> Then why would it be enclosed in \book already?
Because there is nothing else you can enclose it with?
> Surely the same could be achieved with smart use of variables and/or
> nesting includes.
That would require stuff to be included several times, or a whole block
of stuff to get copy&pasted.
> I think I’m beginning to understand where you’re coming from. Is it
> that \book would work more like an output definition akin to \layout {
> \context {} } that can be defined once and modified any number of
> times? I have never seen it that way. Unlike contexts, \book{}
> environments aren’t named per se, are they?
Context definitions aren't "named per se" either.
blabla = \context { \consists "Note_engraver" }
is legal syntax and does not establish a name for the context
definition. The actual establishment is when there is a \name ... in
the context definition. That is why we can write
\context {
\Staff
\name InternalGregorianStaff
\denies Voice % derived contexts will accept specific voices
...
in order to derive a context definition for "InternalGregorianStaff" by
copying and modifying the context definition of "Staff".
--
David Kastrup
