Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-07 Thread David Kastrup
Urs Liska writes: > Am 07.11.2016 um 09:57 schrieb Richard Shann: >> On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 06:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: >>> Am 7. November 2016 01:20:23 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Bernard >>> : Hi Simon, Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. Better >>

Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-07 Thread David Kastrup
Urs Liska writes: > Am 7. November 2016 01:20:23 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Bernard > : >>Hi Simon, >> >>Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. >>Better >>have another coffee. >> >>Most appreciated. >> >>I suppose of course that to make it a predicate without the prelimina

Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-07 Thread Urs Liska
Am 07.11.2016 um 11:03 schrieb Urs Liska: > > Am 07.11.2016 um 09:57 schrieb Richard Shann: >> On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 06:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: >>> Am 7. November 2016 01:20:23 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Bernard >>> : Hi Simon, Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious

Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-07 Thread Urs Liska
Am 07.11.2016 um 09:57 schrieb Richard Shann: > On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 06:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: >> Am 7. November 2016 01:20:23 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Bernard >> : >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. >>> Better >>> have another coffee. >>>

Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-07 Thread Richard Shann
On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 06:45 +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > > Am 7. November 2016 01:20:23 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Bernard > : > >Hi Simon, > > > >Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. > >Better > >have another coffee. > > > >Most appreciated. > > > >I suppose of course that

RE: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-06 Thread Urs Liska
Am 7. November 2016 01:20:23 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Bernard : >Hi Simon, > >Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. >Better >have another coffee. > >Most appreciated. > >I suppose of course that to make it a predicate without the preliminary >let >block (not that I hav

Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-06 Thread Thomas Morley
2016-11-07 1:20 GMT+01:00 Andrew Bernard : > Hi Simon, > > Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. Better > have another coffee. > > Most appreciated. > > I suppose of course that to make it a predicate without the preliminary let > block (not that I have any objection

RE: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-06 Thread Andrew Bernard
Hi Simon, Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. Better have another coffee. Most appreciated. I suppose of course that to make it a predicate without the preliminary let block (not that I have any objection to that) one would have to modify lilypond internals, whi

Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-06 Thread Simon Albrecht
On 07.11.2016 01:12, Simon Albrecht wrote: On 07.11.2016 01:07, Andrew Bernard wrote: Greetings All, In lilypond, if I wanted to define a Scheme predicate such as side? to check whether an argument passed matches only ’left or ’right, how would one go about it? Looking in lily.scm I see li

Re: Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-06 Thread Simon Albrecht
On 07.11.2016 01:07, Andrew Bernard wrote: Greetings All, In lilypond, if I wanted to define a Scheme predicate such as side? to check whether an argument passed matches only ’left or ’right, how would one go about it? Looking in lily.scm I see lists of lilypond specific predicates, but it

Defining new Scheme predicates

2016-11-06 Thread Andrew Bernard
Greetings All, In lilypond, if I wanted to define a Scheme predicate such as side? to check whether an argument passed matches only 'left or 'right, how would one go about it? Looking in lily.scm I see lists of lilypond specific predicates, but it is unclear to me how to create my own addit