Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2011-12-27 Thread David Kastrup
Carl Sorensen writes: > On 12/26/11 12:50 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: >> >>Actually, what about the following rather minimalistic approach? >>#(define-macro (make-engraver . translist) >> (define (make-lambdas translist) >> `(list >> ,@(map (lambda (x) >> (if (pair? (car x)) >>

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2011-12-26 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 12/26/11 12:50 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: >Nicolas Sceaux writes: > >> Le 9 févr. 2010 à 14:42, David Kastrup a écrit : >> >>> I find that syntax tiresome to read. It requires evaluation and thus >>> does not have a close correspondence to print syntax. >>> >>> That's partly because of the

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2011-12-26 Thread David Kastrup
Nicolas Sceaux writes: > Le 9 févr. 2010 à 14:42, David Kastrup a écrit : > >> I find that syntax tiresome to read. It requires evaluation and thus >> does not have a close correspondence to print syntax. >> >> That's partly because of the way the Scheme engraver example has been >> written. >>

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2010-02-10 Thread David Kastrup
Nicolas Sceaux writes: > Le 9 févr. 2010 à 21:32, David Kastrup a écrit : > >> If you really must, you should probably use make-procedure-with-setter >> in order to be able to use >> >> (define (engraver-method engraver 'initialize) ... > > According to: > > >

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2010-02-09 Thread Nicolas Sceaux
Le 9 févr. 2010 à 21:32, David Kastrup a écrit : > If you really must, you should probably use make-procedure-with-setter > in order to be able to use > > (define (engraver-method engraver 'initialize) ... According to:

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2010-02-09 Thread David Kastrup
Nicolas Sceaux writes: > Le 9 févr. 2010 à 14:42, David Kastrup a écrit : > >> I find that syntax tiresome to read. It requires evaluation and thus >> does not have a close correspondence to print syntax. >> >> That's partly because of the way the Scheme engraver example has been >> written. >>

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2010-02-09 Thread Nicolas Sceaux
Le 9 févr. 2010 à 14:42, David Kastrup a écrit : > I find that syntax tiresome to read. It requires evaluation and thus > does not have a close correspondence to print syntax. > > That's partly because of the way the Scheme engraver example has been > written. > > I'd much prefer it to use back

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2010-02-09 Thread David Kastrup
Eric Knapp writes: > I'm learning more Scheme. (I think I'll be learning Scheme for a > while.) I'm looking at the sample file scheme-engraver.ly and I have a > few questions. I think I'm understanding the structure of the Scheme, > it appears to be a list of Scheme pairs. Each pair (cons) has a

Re: Scheme engraver structure questions

2010-02-03 Thread Carl Sorensen
On 2/3/10 7:50 PM, "Eric Knapp" wrote: > Hello, > > I'm learning more Scheme. (I think I'll be learning Scheme for a > while.) I'm looking at the sample file scheme-engraver.ly and I have a > few questions. I think I'm understanding the structure of the Scheme, > it appears to be a list of Sc

Scheme engraver structure questions

2010-02-03 Thread Eric Knapp
Hello, I'm learning more Scheme. (I think I'll be learning Scheme for a while.) I'm looking at the sample file scheme-engraver.ly and I have a few questions. I think I'm understanding the structure of the Scheme, it appears to be a list of Scheme pairs. Each pair (cons) has a symbol that starts wi