Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >>> Looks good to me. It would be nice if I could say >>> >>> \path #0.25 #'miter #'square ##f #samplePath >>> >>> instead of using numbers for the second and third parameter. Is this >>> possible? >> >> How about defining constants path:miter and path:square instead? Then >> \path does not need special code, and the command would just be >> >> \path #0.25 #path:miter #path:square ... > > Hmm. I don't like the ugly `path:' prefix. > Usually, we don't have this in arguments to lilypond commands, AFAIK.
Well, I wanted to avoid naming collisions. A prefix seemed easiest for that. > From a syntactical point of view, I can't see an immediate benefit of > saying > > #path:miter > > instead of > > #'miter Hm? Could you explain what constitutes a "syntactical point of view" in your book? A constant value does not need special treatment in the code, a symbol does. So I fail to see your point. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
