[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ? |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:31:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:14:26PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> An afterthought, however: we do have an inordinate amount of user-level
> commands that need to be called from Scheme rather than with Lilypond
> syntax. That does not make sense. Void music functions have been
> around for eternities, just a bit inconvenient to define, but reasonably
> documented.
>
> Maybe we need a user interface meister that tries to maintain a bit of
> coherency and sanity when new features get added.
I've been looking for one since mid-2008. Don't hold your breath.
I think the best chance for this is GLISS.
Cheers,
- Graham
- define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, Bertrand Bordage, 2011/10/19
- Message not available
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, Carl Sorensen, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, Carl Sorensen, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/20