"John Schlomann" writes:
> define-macro works perfectly for me, even though the Guile manual seems to
> somewhat disparage its use.
Well, it's not the modern Scheme way but at the current point of time
LilyPond works best with Guile 1.8.
--
David Kastrup
er Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: Strange error from define-syntax
>
> "John Schlomann" writes:
>
> > Thank you, David, for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> > "stick to macros". I thought define-syntax was the way to define a
macro.
>
"John Schlomann" writes:
> Thank you, David, for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> "stick to macros". I thought define-syntax was the way to define a macro.
> What am I missing?
define-macro and defmacro apparently.
--
David Kastrup
On 5/28/20, John Schlomann wrote:
> Thank you, David, for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> "stick to macros". I thought define-syntax was the way to define a macro.
> What am I missing?
I think David may have been referring to LilyPond macros; have a look
at that for example:
11:54 AM
> To: John Schlomann
> Cc: 'Lilypond-User Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: Strange error from define-syntax
>
> "John Schlomann" writes:
>
> > Dear Ponders & Schemers,
> >
> >
> >
> > I wanted to try creating a simple Scheme ma
"John Schlomann" writes:
> Dear Ponders & Schemers,
>
>
>
> I wanted to try creating a simple Scheme macro. I've never done this before,
> so I may well be going about it all wrong, but the error I get doesn't make
> sense.
>
>
>
> Here is a minimal non-working example:
>
>
>
> \version
