Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>> Vectors don't make sense unless you give a mechanism to map/iterate >>> over them, ie something along the lines of >>> >>> (make-parallel-music (vector->list >>> (map (lambda (x) (add-new-context "Staff" x)) violin))) >> >> It would be easy enough to let $@ work on arbitrary sequences, not just >> lists. You can already write things like >> >> << $@(map ...) >> >> >> How many people are asking for \violin2 all the time? > > How many people of these are asking for a O(1) indexed access > container? I think most people just want to write "2" instead of > "Two". I don't see how a person asking for \violin2 is asking for > arrays. Most compositions don't have more than 2 violin voices anyway. > > I am actually supportive of allowing digits in identifiers, it has > irked me for years that we could not get it to work.
It is easy enough to get to work. It just comes at a cost. > I vaguely recall you implemented this in 2.16 already, but I guess I > am mistaken? You are. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
