Am 21.03.2012 03:20, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl<m...@hohlart.de> writes:
Is this a feasible approach? What am I currently doing wrong?
#(define bar-line-stencil-alist
'(("|" . thin-stil)
("." . thick-stil)
("" . empty-stil)
))
(thin-stil (bar-line::simple-bar-line grob hair extent rounded))
(thick-stil (bar-line::simple-bar-line grob fatline extent rounded))
(empty-stil (make-filled-box-stencil (cons 0 0) (cons 0 extent)))
(stencil (assoc-get glyph bar-line-stencil-alist empty-stil))
)
stencil
))
That does not work. stencil is set to a symbol, and that symbol is
never converted to a value. When the function is being executed, the
_symbols_ thin-stil, stick-stil and empty-stil have long lost any
connection with the expressions that they were associated with while the
let-statement was being compiled.
You could write (local-eval stencil (the-environment)) to let the
lexical environment of the function compilation linger over long enough
to make this work, but you would earn a reward for the unnecessarily
most ugly and unstable code imaginable.
Instead, try using a case statement. There is no need to calculate all
stencils and throwing most of them away.
That's what I originally did, but my idea was to provide an easy way to
add new stencils/bar lines without fiddling with bar-line::print.
But if this way is a no-go, I'll use case.
Thanks for your explanations!
Marc
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
