Wol's lists <[email protected]> writes: > On 23/11/17 17:17, David Kastrup wrote: >>> Can anybody give me any hints? >> I really hate it when people don't even_try_ entering a single note >> themselves and leave all the work to every single reader. > > Sorry. But it might be a problem someone's already solved, seeing as > it's pretty common in my sort of music.
We are not talking about solving the problem, we are talking about providing a skeleton of your music where one only needs to actually solve the problem instead of entering your music. >> That being said, you could use something like >> >> visibleAfter = >> #(define-music-function (n mus) (index? ly:music?) > > At which point we are into music functions, and scheme, and EVERY time > I've tried to do this sort of stuff I just get absolutely nowhere. So type it out every time instead of writing a music function. > The problem, from my point of view, is that lilypond syntax is simple > and makes sense to me. As soon as scheme gets involved, the learning > curve is like hitting a cliff. The Scheme "involved" here is a music function wrapper. The body of the music function did not contain a single line of Scheme. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
