Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes:
>>> \version "2.19.82"
>>>
>>> test = #(define-scheme-function (suffix) (string?) #{
>>> \book {
>>> \bookOutputSuffix #suffix
>>> \score {
>>> d4
>>> }
>>> }
>>> #} )
>>>
>>> \test "surname"
>>>
>>> (still) causes a "Bad expression type" error.
>> Ah, well. Turns out that copying the code for \xxx here where \xxx was
>> a book identifier was not really a good idea before anybody figures out
>> and defines the difference between a book and a bookpart. Currently it
>> is not viable to distinguish them.
>>
>> \book { \test "surname" }
>>
>> could conceivably just close its eyes and say "ok, let's treat it as a
>> book rather than a bookpart" but doesn't. Does anybody have an idea
>> what is supposed to distinguish a book from a bookpart outside of actual
>>
>> \book {
>> \bookpart { ... } }
>>
>> usage?
>
> I suspect that I do not understand the question correctly; at least I
> certainly do not understand the technicalities involved.
>
> For me, as a user, the point is just that a book generates a
> stand-alone file whose filename can be defined indepentently of
> everything else. (Also, I noticed that whereas bookparts can have
> their own \paper blocks, it seems that the generated pdf has one paper
> size for all which is filled to varying degrees?)
>
> But am I right in thinking that your question pertains to inherent
> structural properties of the generated expressions so they can be
> distinguished to be of one type or the other in an internal
> representation that does not sport a label 'book'?
As long as we don't come up with a satisfactory explanation what it
means to store a book or a bookpart in an expression and use it in one
or more locations, there is no way to sensibly handle the storage and
processing of bookparts independently from their use.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
