Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 28.12.2015 um 18:49 schrieb David Kastrup: >>> Using the syntax with quotes is rather ugly, I agree. But it is >>> > nonetheless potentially useful for two reasons: >>> > (1) it enables us to use numbers etc. in variable names >> Why would that be desirable? >> > > Whenever you have variables pointing to indexed parts or to consecutive > snippets you may want to use variables like > > violin1 = > violin2 =
What's wrong with violinI ? > or > > flute_phrase01 = > flute_phrase02 = > > or similar. When would you ever want to do that? > This is expressive as LilyPond code per se, and would be accessible > for scripting, e.g. to generate stub files with empty varialbes. Why would violinI not be accessible for scripting? That's just (format #f "violin~@r" 1). > The workaround using roman numbers is pretty cumbersome, What's this with "workaround" anyway? I have more scores using "Violin I" and "Violin II" for their parts than otherwise. Here are the instrument names of literally the first score I found on my desktop:
> and I think > > violin_02_34 would be much more comprehensible to most users than > violinIIxxxiv 34 separate second violins seem a bit excessive. -- David Kastrup
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
