[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> A cheap functionality, which would prove very useful in
> practice, would be the ability to declare Lilypond stuff
> in scheme, as in:
>
> (map myfunc {\notes { a b c d | a b c d}})
>
> which would be equivalent to:
>
> tempvar0981 = \notes { a b c d | a b c d}
>
> (map myfunc tempvar0981)
>
> Since we already have the ability to declare
> Scheme stuff within LilyPond, allowing for the
> reverse might be enough for most applications....
>
> Is this just nonsense, or is this reasonable to implement
> (I don't know whether one can plug language extensions in
> GUILE...) ?
I don't know how it can be done. Perhaps our Scheme macro expert can
chip in some ideas. Nicolas?
In the meantime, you can achieve the same thing with apply, albeit a
little more verbose
\apply #(lambda (m)
..more stuff.. )
\notes { a b c d | a b c d}
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
