Le lundi 10 août 2009 à 00:36 +0100, Ian Hulin a écrit :
> So providing we could stitch this into the lilypond parsing, you could get
> \afterGrace #(5.16) {c'1} {d16[ e16]) ;or
> \afterGrace {c1} {d16[ e16]} ; or even
>
> \afterGrace #:fraction #(5.16} #main: {c1} #grace {d16[ e 16]} ; and
> \afterGrace #:main {c1} #:grace {d16[ e16]}
>
> If you added the keyword clauses to the definition. Keywords would get
> round the problem of having to order the parameters to make sure the
> music expressions are at the end.
>
> Keywords may be going a bit far, but is the optional parameter idea
> maybe a runner?I'm not sure I know why all languages I know (including Scheme) that support optional arguments require them after mandatory arguments, but I think it's not worth fighting against this by trying to support optional arguments first in ly music functions. IMHO keyword arguments are not worth the effort, patches might be welcome to prove the contrary. John
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
