Reinhold Kainhofer <reinh...@kainhofer.com> writes: > Am Sonntag, 15. November 2009 20:16:51 schrieb Nicolas Sceaux: >> Le 14 nov. 2009 à 09:29, David Kastrup a écrit : >> > Now the harp-pedal command defines the property signature >> > >> > ((size 1.0) >> > (harp-pedal-details) >> > (thickness 0.5)) >> > >> > So far, so fine. It >> > then calls make-harp-pedal without passing it those let-bound >> > variables. As far as I understand Scheme and its closures, this means >> > that the defaults specified in this manner are ignored. > > I wrote that code, and I have to admit that I don't understand this part at > all. I simply copied code from somewhere else and tweaked it so that it > worked.... > >> > make-harp-pedal then starts off with >> > >> > (let* ((size (chain-assoc-get 'size props 1.2)) >> > (details (chain-assoc-get 'harp-pedal-details props '())) >> >> Just remove the useless binding of `size' in the let form, >> and give the appropriate default in the property argument. > > Ah, interesting... So, in the make-harp-pedal function, the properties > defined in the harp-pedal markup function are available?
Not if make-harp-pedal is not defined in the scope of the harp-pedal markup function. If I understand Scheme correctly. size is automatically let-bound to the correct value (default if not specified in properties) within the markup function defined with define-builtin-markup-command. > That's cool! Yes and no: the coolness does not inherit into called functions. My personal preference with the harp pedals would be to throw out make-harp-pedal altogether (it is just used as a shared helper function for an outcommented different definition which should likely just get removed altogether). But I think I covered most issues in my first post anyway. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
