Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:17:03 +0100, darius a dit :
> This is a typical case where Lilypond functions would come as
> a useful addition to variables. The text would be a parameter,
> in something such as:
> MySeq(x) = \notes {a^\x b c d a a}
> Perhaps the right way of dealing with this would be to handle
> them as symbolic macros rather than true functions.
> Besides, if we ever need recursion, we can always revert to
> Scheme :-)
> Is this so bizarre that I'm the only Lilypond user who thinks
> this might prove useful ?
There has been several times on this list requests of this kind of
TeX-like `macros', and the general answer was: use scheme. I think
that LilyPond's extensibility with scheme is under-used. The main
reason is that it's not very convenient, now, to build music
expressions in scheme. I remember few weeks ago Paul asking how to
parametrize an expression like:
\property Voice.TextScript \override #'padding = #x
the parameter--^^^
With a little extra music-expression-maker library, a possible
solution was:
#(define*-public (text-pad pad #:optional once)
(ly:export
(mus:context-override Voice TextScript padding pad #:once once)))
And then, you could use it in a \notes block:
\score {
\notes {
c'^"salut" % normal padding
#(text-pad 3.0 #t) c'^"salut" % 3.0 padding, once
c'^"salut" % normal padding
#(text-pad 4.0) c'^"salut" c'^"salut" % 4.0 padding, always
}
}
You can do amazing things in scheme, which as built-in support for
functions, macros, etc, so there is no need of lilypond functions.
I plan to work on a library and documentation of 'lilypond in scheme'.
(I hope that might be useful).
nicolas
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
