Re: Wish/suggestion: \import statement

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 07.11.2014 18:01, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Am 07.11.2014 12:31, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>> What we need is to drag the concept of modules into LilyPond,
>>> What do you mean by this?
>>> Do you suggest to implement a module approach that is somewhat
>>> parallel to Scheme's use-module approach?
>> No, more likely an approach that is a good wrapper around use-module.
>
> OK, then I've understood you correctly.
>
>>
>>> Or rather try to "package" a module approach in Scheme modules somehow?
>>> My impression is that defining and loading modules should be simpler
>>> than defining (and to some extent using) Scheme modules. At least
>>> there should be some syntactic sugar so one can use a "\" command to
>>> import a library.
>> I agree with that.  Unless we have additional functionality we need to
>> wrap, however, we likely do not need to avoid Scheme for _exporting_ a
>> library: the expected minimal skill levels of library providers are
>> higher than those of library users.
> Yes, sure.
>
> Do you think this is feasible now or in the foreseeable future?
> While willing to invest thought and time in the issue I know that my
> Scheme skills are still quite far away from being tremenduously
> helpful in such a development.

I think it should be feasible.  The main problem is figuring out what to
export by default and what not.

And markups are really messed up, defining macros, a bunch of functions,
properties and stuff.

-- 
David Kastrup