On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As an interesting meta-question, I always wondered in how far Lilypond
> users were software people, or at least, technically oriented people.
> Everytime I show my score to a musician, he/she
> finds them beautiful - and, as a matter of principle, I n
4all.nl
Quoting Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > My question - I would not dare call it a request... - was related to
> > something I see as very unsophisticated. My belief, and a number of
> > messages on this mailing list seem to agree with me on this matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> My question - I would not dare call it a request... - was related to
> something I see as very unsophisticated. My belief, and a number of
> messages on this mailing list seem to agree with me on this matter -
> is that a simplistic function-like facility would prove
May I respectfully agree with the premise, but disagree with the
conclusion. Everything can be done in Scheme, I guess that this
is clear at this stage. After all, significant parts of Lilypond are
entirely written in this language.
However, Scheme is a sometimes arcane language.
Did not LISP stan
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:58:07 +0100, Han-Wen a dit :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> A cheap functionality, which would prove very useful in
>> practice, would be the ability to declare Lilypond stuff
>> in scheme, as in:
>>
>> (map myfunc {\notes { a b c d | a b c d}})
>>
>> which would be e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> A cheap functionality, which would prove very useful in
> practice, would be the ability to declare Lilypond stuff
> in scheme, as in:
>
> (map myfunc {\notes { a b c d | a b c d}})
>
> which would be equivalent to:
>
> tempvar0981 = \notes { a b c d | a b
A cheap functionality, which would prove very useful in
practice, would be the ability to declare Lilypond stuff
in scheme, as in:
(map myfunc {\notes { a b c d | a b c d}})
which would be equivalent to:
tempvar0981 = \notes { a b c d | a b c d}
(map myfunc tempvar0981)
Since
Hello, Darius:
Since Lilypond variables are just a notational shorthand for scheme
"let" constructs, wouldn'it be possible to have Lilypond functions
translate seamlessly to scheme functions?
I think this sounds like a great idea; in fact, a "library" of Scheme
functions which have Lilypond funct
Cheers,
Not much really... I think that Lilypond is a wonderful tool, not only because
it produces beautiful scores, but even more importantly, because it allows
one to describe music analytically, as a set of user-defined musical
constructs (themes, fragments, etc..) rather than just a set of not
