Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes: > Am 04.04.2018 um 19:25 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> OK, but now I have a follow-up question which is quite similar to my >>> other post from today (and I'm afraid the answer is similarly >>> embarrassing): >>> >>> I managed to install an editionID to a specific movement's score with >>> this code: >>> >>> (ly:score-add-output-def! score >>> #{ >>> \layout { >>> \context { >>> \Score >>> #(editionID #f movement-path) >>> } >>> } >>> #}) >>> >>> which actually works when I use that "movement-path" variable to >>> address in \editionMod later. >>> >>> However, I would like to be able to also write this without the >>> permanent switches, >> Permanent switches? Huh? > > Well, 'permanent' is of course the wrong word. What I'm (somewhat) > taking issue with is switching languages back and forth within one > expression.
Because? >>> i.e. in pure Scheme syntax. >> Why? Seriously. > > My project library is getting more and more pure Scheme code, and > while sometimes I wonder if it's worth the effort it usually turns out > to do so, for example because things immediately become easier to > maintain or extend afterwards. How so? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
