Am 29.06.2016 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> That's not what Johan is talking about. What he refers to is that the
>> > C #include syntax *looks* completely different from regular C/C++
>> > code, so nobody will mistake it for a regular function call or
>> > whatever.
>> >
>> > But \include *lo
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 29.06.2016 um 17:12 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Johan Vromans writes:
>>>
>>> Except that in C #include is significantly different from the rest
>>> of the C syntax. #-lines are all different and independent of
>>> C-lines and syntax.
>>
>> The same with LilyPond. You can
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:12:57 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
> The same with LilyPond. You can put \include in the midst of any
> LilyPond construct without bothering about nesting. Try
I meant "visually distinct". Lines starting with # are preprocessor
only lines. \include is not visually distinct
Am 29.06.2016 um 17:12 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Johan Vromans writes:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:05:59 +0200
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> Basically you are expecting something akin to the #include of the C
>>> preprocessor to accept calls of functions defined in C for specifying
>>> the file
Johan Vromans writes:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:05:59 +0200
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Basically you are expecting something akin to the #include of the C
>> preprocessor to accept calls of functions defined in C for specifying
>> the file to include.
>
> Except that in C #include is significant
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:05:59 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
> Basically you are expecting something akin to the #include of the C
> preprocessor to accept calls of functions defined in C for specifying
> the file to include.
Except that in C #include is significantly different from the rest of
the C
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 28.06.2016 um 11:05 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska writes:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am surprised that \include refuses to accept a string that isn't
>>> passed literally but through a scheme-function:
>>>
>>> \version "2.19.43" givePath = #(define-scheme-function ()()
Am 28.06.2016 um 11:05 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am surprised that \include refuses to accept a string that isn't
>> passed literally but through a scheme-function:
>>
>> \version "2.19.43" givePath = #(define-scheme-function ()()
>> "some/path/that/will/
Urs Liska writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I am surprised that \include refuses to accept a string that isn't
> passed literally but through a scheme-function:
>
> \version "2.19.43" givePath = #(define-scheme-function ()()
> "some/path/that/will/probably/not/be/found.ily") #(display (givePath))
> \inclu
2016-06-28 9:23 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska :
> Hi all,
>
> I am surprised that \include refuses to accept a string that isn't passed
> literally but through a scheme-function:
>
> \version "2.19.43" givePath = #(define-scheme-function ()()
> "some/path/that/will/probably/not/be/found.ily") #(display (give
Hi all,
I am surprised that \include refuses to accept a string that isn't
passed literally but through a scheme-function:
\version "2.19.43" givePath = #(define-scheme-function ()()
"some/path/that/will/probably/not/be/found.ily") #(display (givePath))
\include \givePath
I would of course ex
11 matches
Mail list logo
