Graham Percival wrote: > No; we understand it quite well. >From what I could see, Mats' example did not implement what was requested.
> Adding something like this to the basic syntax could be quite > problematic. We already get enough complaints about changing the > syntax, so we certainly shouldn't rush to add a new construction > like this. Fair enough. I _do_ understand that. I would also note that it's only a relevant consideration if you want Lilypond's syntax to be focused on being human-*writeable*, rather than human-readable. > I suggest that you try writing a scheme function that meets your > needs; once it's done, submit it to LSR and share it with other > people. In a few months or years, if it's a widely, we may add it > to the official lilypond packages. I don't have any knowledge/experience with Scheme right now, but do plan to change that; if at that point I can implement this idea, I'll give it a go. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
