Mark Knoop <[email protected]> writes: > In this instance single number lists are not relevant anyway. So I've > tried this method: > > #(define (multi-number-list? x) > (and (list? x) > (< 1 (length x)) > (every number? x))) > > testfn = #(define-void-function > (a) (multi-number-list?) > (print "\na=~s length=~s\n" a (length a))) > > { > % this works > \testfn #'(1 2 3) > % this doesn't - why? > \testfn 1,2,3 > % this fails as expected > \testfn 1 > } > > ...and was surprised to see that the new list syntax doesn't work in > this instance. It's not clear to me at what point lilypond/guile > decides that something is a list or not.
LilyPond does not try for a list if a single-element list does not work. Because that decision would result in lookahead which is something it cannot do in the context of optional arguments. It needs to make a decision earlier than that. So, uh, my advice was not particularly useful. Sorry for that. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
