Re: allowing \f and \F

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:25:17PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > For example, what about my hated idea of splitting namespaces of
>> > music fuctions and identifiers?  I'm not fond of perl, but
>> > something like this is unambiguous:
>> >
>> >   $F = \markup { "Horn in F" }
>> >   {
>> >     c$F
>> >   }
>> 
>> I don't want to differentiate between predefined and user-defined
>> commands.
>
> That's certainly a consistent view to take, but it might be worth
> discussing that further at some point.  If there's a separate
> namespace then I can't see any technical problems, and some users
> may appreciate being able to define short strings like $a or $f
> without any conflict with existing commands and keywords.

It's likely a more important consideration to divide the Guile and
LilyPond namespace rather than the LilyPond and user space.

To wit, convert

xxx = \something

into

#(define $xxx $something)

or similar (the $ is here just an arbitrarily chosen prefix with no
connection to the meaning outside of Scheme).  However, this would imply
serious incompatibilities at the Scheme level, and the module system of
Guile decreases the actual impact of naming collisions since precompiled
code continues to refer to the variables/identifiers in the Guile
module.

-- 
David Kastrup