Hi,
please ignore, if this is mentioned before (I couldn't find anything about it).
Numbers in LilyPond-variables are already possible, if
superscript-numbers are used.
note⁰ = \relative c' { c1 }
note¹ = \relative c' { d1 }
note² = \relative c' { d1 }
note³ = \relative c' { f1 }
note⁴ = \relati
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Comment #4 on issue 2072 by philehol...@gmail.com: Add proper complex
variables to Lilypond
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2072
(No comment was entered for this change.)
___
bug-lilypond mailin
Comment #3 on issue 2072 by d...@gnu.org: Add proper complex variables to
Lilypond
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2072
Cf http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/30761> for
some more thoughts:
The definition would be
something like
violin = \vector 2
> sonata = \vector 2
> sonata1 = \struct #'(expo modulation reprise)
> sonata1 #'expo = { ... }
> sonata1 #'modulation = { ... }
> sonata1 #'reprise = { ... }
This looks nice!
Werner
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://list
Ian Hulin writes:
> Hi David,
> On 09/12/11 12:55, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
>>
>> Comment #2 on issue 2072 by d...@gnu.org: Add proper complex
>> variables to Lilypond
>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2072
>>
>> After thinking about it, assignments are possible only
Hi David,
On 09/12/11 12:55, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
>
> Comment #2 on issue 2072 by d...@gnu.org: Add proper complex
> variables to Lilypond
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2072
>
> After thinking about it, assignments are possible only in contexts
> where strings ca
Comment #2 on issue 2072 by d...@gnu.org: Add proper complex variables to
Lilypond
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2072
After thinking about it, assignments are possible only in contexts where
strings can't occur by themselves. So it should actually be possible to use
t
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> part[3].violin[1]
>>
>> That's the logic of the musician rather than the programmer speaking.
>> If you wanted it to be _that_, you'd have to call it \part3violin1, I am
>> afraid.
>
> Oh, yes, of course, I forgot to mention it.
>
>> I actually don't see all that man
>> part[3].violin[1]
>
> That's the logic of the musician rather than the programmer speaking.
> If you wanted it to be _that_, you'd have to call it \part3violin1, I am
> afraid.
Oh, yes, of course, I forgot to mention it.
> I actually don't see all that many uses for it (possibly because I
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> However, I can live with "violin1" or "violin1part3" also.
>>
>> "part" would be a more like a tag of a struct or index of an
>> associative array, so \violin1part3 could access something
>> corresponding to violin[1].part[3] in C-speak when defined properly.
>
> Actua
>> However, I can live with "violin1" or "violin1part3" also.
>
> "part" would be a more like a tag of a struct or index of an
> associative array, so \violin1part3 could access something
> corresponding to violin[1].part[3] in C-speak when defined properly.
Actually, it would be rather
part[
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> Uh, at the moment, nothing is possible since no line of code has
>> been written. If you are interested about what goes on in my head,
>> you'd be able to use either \violin1 or \violin#1 naturally
>
> \violin1 is OK for me. Regarding the calling syntax, I prefer to
>
> Uh, at the moment, nothing is possible since no line of code has
> been written. If you are interested about what goes on in my head,
> you'd be able to use either \violin1 or \violin#1 naturally
\violin1 is OK for me. Regarding the calling syntax, I prefer to
define with
\set \violin1
an
Comment #1 on issue 2072 by d...@gnu.org: Add proper complex variables to
Lilypond
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2072
Well, I have to take back that particular syntax since it could not be made
to work: detecting assignment would require seeing the = as a lookahead
to
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> I propose developing the infrastructure that allows saying
>> violin = \makeVector 2
>> and afterwards using
>> \violin 1 = { ... } % backslash is no typo here
>> as well as { ... \violin 1 }
>> It will be possible to use arbitrary numbers (or Scheme expressions)
>> as i
> I propose developing the infrastructure that allows saying
> violin = \makeVector 2
> and afterwards using
> \violin 1 = { ... } % backslash is no typo here
> as well as { ... \violin 1 }
> It will be possible to use arbitrary numbers (or Scheme expressions)
> as index, and this would straightfo
googlecode.com> writes:
> I propose developing the infrastructure that allows saying
> violin = \makeVector 2
> and afterwards using
> \violin 1 = { ... } % backslash is no typo here
> as well as { ... \violin 1 }
Remember that issue 1670 asked for numbers embedded in identifiers
violin1mvt2
Status: New
Owner: d...@gnu.org
Labels: Type-Enhancement Bounty
New issue 2072 by d...@gnu.org: Add proper complex variables to Lilypond
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2072
A frequent complaint on the mailing list is that Lilypond does not permit
identifiers with numbers in
18 matches
Mail list logo
