Well, the fun is that it seems that Scheme creators like predefined
commands as well. Think of the commands
cadr, caddr, cadddr, which are essentially:
(car (list-tail mylist 2)) (car (list-tail mylist 3)) (car (list-tail
mylist 4))
In SRFI-1, the first extension of the Scheme language even includes the
commands:
(first mylist) which equals (car mylist).
(second mylist) which equals (cadr mylist), ie. (car (list-tail mylist 2))
...
(tenth mylist) which would equal (cadddddddddr mylist) if one had had
the idea to define such a command, ie. (car (list-tail mylist 10))
Am I insane that I find this complete nonsense?
Learning and using two commands, car and list-tail versus more than a
dozen commands for the same purpose.
Bert
James E. Bailey wrote:
personally, I like having predefined commands. I don't know how to say
\key fis \major in scheme, and I don't want to know. Leaving that kind
of predefined command to the editor forces everyone to use an (or
/the/) editor that can send that kind of information. The predefined
commands are a really great thing for end users.
Am 14.07.2008 um 10:31 schrieb Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool):
Very good point :-) This is my real question as well.
I remember this is not the first time that a new predefined command
is added (or requested) for something that could be better handled
with the editor.
Bert
James E. Bailey wrote:
I don't know if this is really crowding the LilyPond namespace with
a feature that as far as I know is in one tool attached to a
specific editor. I mean, if that's the case, why have any editor
features as predefined commands in the first place?
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
