Re: lilypond ./ChangeLog ./darwin.patch Documentati...

[Mats Bengtsson]

Graham Percival wrote:

> On 19-Feb-06, at 4:50 AM, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>
> > Quoting Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> >
> > > Index: lilypond/Documentation/user/programming-interface.itely
> > > diff -u lilypond/Documentation/user/programming-interface.itely:1.47 
> > > lilypond/Documentation/user/programming-interface.itely:1.48
> > > --- lilypond/Documentation/user/programming-interface.itely:1.47    
> > > Mon Feb  6 01:23:40 2006
> > > +++ lilypond/Documentation/user/programming-interface.itely    Sun 
> > > Feb 19 04:05:00 2006
> > > @@ -87,11 +87,25 @@
> > > @{ #(ly:export (make-sequential-music (list newLa))) @}
> > > @end example
> > >
> > > +Scheme code is evaluated as soon as the parser encounters it.  To
> > > +define some scheme code in a macro (to be called later), use
> > > +
> > > address@hidden
> > > +#(define (nopc)
> > > +  (ly:set-option 'point-and-click #f))
> > > +#(nopc)
> > > +
> > > +...
> > > +\nopc
> > > +{ c'4 }
> > > address@hidden example
> > > +
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this really correct? #(define ... ) defines the Scheme function.
> > #(nopc) runs it. Is \nopc just another syntax for #(nopc) ?
>
>
> Er, I confess that I have no idea.  I was trying to summarize the 
> "Defining shortcuts for scheme code", since it looked like useful 
> information.  But on second glance, it looks like Han-Wen's solution 
> involved calling it with #(nopc), while Erik's solution had a 
> different definition but was called with \nopc.
>
> I'll include both methods.
> - Graham


Note that Erik's proposal was just a simple special case of
what's described in 11.1.3 Extending music syntax.

  /Mats