On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:18:56PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/8/17 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>:
>
> > Alternately, we could be stricter about this -- I wouldn't mind if
> > we insisted that people use
> > \override foo #'bar = #5
> > instead of allowing the non-# form, if then we could state as a
> > general rule that overrides required a # after the =
>
> That's fine for simple overrides with numbers and strings, but would
> be very confusing for novice users trying to wrestle with the correct
> syntax for markup in scheme (when they're probably already struggling
> with \markup { } syntax).
Good point, although as a general rule I'd favor simplifying the
non-scheme stuff at the possible expense of scheme stuff.
Besides, if somebody's setting a list, they already have to know
to remove the #' from the #'(1.0 -2.3) when putting it into
scheme.
Anyway, we'll discuss this later -- my main point was to encourage
Mark to learn those languages. :)
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
