On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:49:45 Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I don't believe that the mess was the result of
> > users trying to cut down on typing, I just don't.
>
> No, but having both a functional programming form of extending lily
> and a macro oriented form will lead to confusion, and there is enough
> of that already in Lily as we have it now.
>
> > I have a way of passing values now, fairly easily.
> > How are you hurt?
>
> I'm not hurt, but people keep asking me to put in parameters, macros
> and what have you. This gets a little tiring, so I wanted to be clear.
Not quite clear yet. You allow pass through LaTeX in the \header and
other places. In lilypond-book I could take advantage of \newcommand.
That does not amount to a 'macro oriented form', and I don't see
how it ever could.
In lily-pond book I was able to use \newcommand to insert
the string number *or* letter with circles around them
both into the text *and* into the fingering of the lilypond
blocks with almost exactly the same syntax. This was very helpful,
and the opposite of confusing.
The camel's nose is under the tent as long as you use LaTeX.
If people want to confuse themselves, what do you care? No
one is forcing you to adopt any macros which you don't want
to adopt.
If I find that I have to change a stem length, I define a macro
*immediately*,
slong =
because if I use it more
than once it saves me typing, and I don't know at the outset
how many times I am going to need it. Having a different
command for every stemlength needed is just annoying.
sloong =
slooong =
sloooong =
sshort =
sshoort =
Nobody wants to invent a 'macro oriented form'.
It's just not cost effective.
I do sloooong (well, not exactly) because I am *lazy*.
If I were sufficiently confident of the result, I
could type in shortcuts like $slong$ 4.0 and then
use the editor when I was done to search and
replace. The problem is that one usually can't
do a big file with no mistakes and you are forced
to check it frequently as you go.
(Using a stream *editor* like sed as you go is
a way out.)
You see 'macro oriented form'. I see 'How am I going
to be able to make this file tolerably readable?' A
'macro oriented form' in one piece of music might be
a disaster in the next.
Having the
ability to do that sort of thing with simple substitution,
I am still reluctant to do it, because IMHO .ly files are easier
to understand if the user definitions are in them instead
of in custom auxiliary user files. That would be true
whether I used sly or indulged in 'scheme hacking'.
So when doing an \override with a value by other means
I will continue to define the \revert in the .ly file, and
document the other means in the .ly file, because years
from now I want to be able to understand what the hell
I did.
> Perhaps this is an item for the FAQ.
It surely is.
------------------------------------------------------------
Information is not knowledge. Belief is not truth.
Indoctrination is not teaching. Tradition is not evidence.
David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
