Re: allowing \f and \F

[Janek Warchoł]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:26 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>> I assume that this would mean having to use #(define ....) every time
>> we wanted to define a variable/command (e.g. notes = { c d e } and red
>> = \twear #'color #red).
>
> Huh?  Why?

I must have misunderstood you then.  Nevermind that part.

>> From a user's point of view that would be both cryptic and a bit
>> inconvenient.  I consider manupilating variables a fundamental aspect
>> of using Lilypond, and its syntax should be as simple as possible.
>
> I don't understand what you are getting at.  The translation between
> Scheme identifiers and LilyPond identifiers would be different, but that
> does not mean that you have to change any LilyPond code, just Scheme
> code.

As i've misunderstood you in first place, my comment that you quote is invalid.

> The main problem would be that #x and \x would no longer be
> interchangeable in most contexts as \x would be equivalent to #$x
> (without special interpretation) or to $$x (the first $ being the
> "active Scheme" $ inside of LilyPond, the second $ being the new
> identifier prefix).

I'd need an example to understand/give my opinion on this, but please
don't spend too much time explaining it.  With regard to Scheme
"layer", i trust your opinion more than my own.

best,
Janek