Re: My own wishlist...

[darius]

A cheap functionality, which would prove very useful in
practice, would be the ability to declare Lilypond stuff
in scheme, as in:

      (map myfunc {\notes { a b c d | a b c d}})

which would be equivalent to:

      tempvar0981 = \notes { a b c d | a b c d}

      (map myfunc tempvar0981)

Since we already have the ability to declare 
Scheme stuff within LilyPond, allowing for the
reverse might be enough for most applications....

Is this just nonsense, or is this reasonable to implement
(I don't know whether one can plug language extensions in
GUILE...) ?

Cheers,

Darius/.

Quoting Kieren Richard MacMillan <address@hidden>:

> Hello, Darius:
> 
> > Since Lilypond variables are just a notational shorthand for scheme
> > "let" constructs, wouldn'it be possible to have Lilypond functions
> > translate seamlessly to scheme functions?
> 
> I think this sounds like a great idea; in fact, a "library" of Scheme 
> functions which have Lilypond function shorthands would be a great 
> community project! [Ever since I discovered Lilypond, I have been 
> meaning to learn Scheme -- maybe the existence of such a project would 
> provide the push I need to hunker down and do it, so that I would be 
> able to contribute some functions myself.]
> 
> Are there any Scheme-savvy users out there willing to work on something 
> like this?
> 
> Best regards,
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
> 
> 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/