2016-08-03 12:34 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>: > Hi Harm, > > On Aug 3, 2016, at 1:05 AM, Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Regarding scheme, there is no difference. > > So > > (1) the leading hash (which your example has and mine doesn’t) makes no > difference; and
The hash isn't a scheme-thingy here in a .ly-file! It just tells the _LilyPond_-parser "scheme follows". But if you use it this way in a .scm-file it throws an error. > (2) the functions ‘define' and 'define-public' are identical From the guile manual: — syntax: define-public ... Equivalent to (begin (define foo ...) (export foo)). Practical meaning: a procedure defined by `define-public' in a .scm-file is usable in .ly-files. Which wouldn't be the case for simple use of `define'. Other from that no difference. So it usually makes no sense to use `define-public' _in_ a .ly-file, it doesn't hurt either, though. > > ? > > Perhaps learning Scheme is going to be even more confusing than I feared… =( Regarding your desired usage I still think there's no scheme-problem, but something else. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
