Re: Scheme used badly: syntax problem

Graham King writes: > Many thanks David! > > (In the course of trying to convert the \note syntax, I discovered the > existence of \note-by-number which solved 90% of my problem. Sorry for > the confusing reference to \note.) Well, \note-by-number #1 #0 #UP is essentially the same as \note {2}

Re: Scheme used badly: syntax problem

Many thanks David! (In the course of trying to convert the \note syntax, I discovered the existence of \note-by-number which solved 90% of my problem. Sorry for the confusing reference to \note.) On Sun, 2023-09-17 at 00:38 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham King writes: > > > I'm trying to

Re: Scheme used badly: syntax problem

Graham King writes: > I'm trying to convert a naive Scheme function which has been broken by > the new syntax for \note.  Some arithmetic gives me the index (in this > MNWE, 96) to a list of pairs, foo, from which I want to extract some > markup. > > The 300-LOC problem seems to boil down to

Scheme used badly: syntax problem

I'm trying to convert a naive Scheme function which has been broken by the new syntax for \note.  Some arithmetic gives me the index (in this MNWE, 96) to a list of pairs, foo, from which I want to extract some markup. The 300-LOC problem seems to boil down to this: