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.