Re: Macro pre-processing?

[Graham Percival]

On 30-Apr-06, at 3:49 AM, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:

> "David Feuer" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On 4/29/06, Geoff Horton <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > I question that. I think it looks easy to you because you already 
> > > know
> > > how it all works and fits together.
>
> I'm tired of these kinds of remarks.

They do certainly crop up often.

> > Agreed.  LilyPond is a domain-specific language.  It is rather odd
> > that it is necessary to break out into a different language to do a
> > great many things.

> 2) Scheme *is* part of LilyPond language, using #, and scheme "macro 
> and other
>    capabilities" are indeed used. what do you think happens when one 
> writes:
>
> pad = #(define-music-function (parser location padding music) (number? 
> ly:music?)
>         #{ \once \override TextScript #'padding = #$padding
>            $music #})

In Geoff's defense, this kind of construct _is_ more complicated (to an 
end-user) than it needs to be -- why the define-music-function, why the 
"parser location" (don't bother to explain it to me yet), etc.  It 
would be easier for users if we could just write
pad = #function (padnum) (number?) %{
  \once \override TExtScript #'padding = #$padnum
%}
(of course, we'd still get complaints about the weird syntax)
That said, my opinion is that users can live with it.  Do the blind 
copy-and-paste thing; change the "TextScript" to "DynamicLineSpanner" 
or whatever you need; it's not a big deal.

To those who complain that this could be better documented, please see 
sections 4.4 and 5.3 in the bleeding edge documentation.  If you don't 
know what I'm talking about, then just wait a few weeks.


> I don't understand the point of this discussion.

This is the point I really want to jump on.  After the first two or 
three emails, this descended into the usual pointless spat over 
ease-of-use and documentation.  Stop talking about it, and start doing 
something!  If we all spent half as much time _working_ on the docs 
that we've spent _talking_ about them, they'd be twice as good by now.

- Graham