Re: substitution with \movement

[Nicolas Sceaux]

Le 11 juin 08 à 13:21, Arjan Bos a écrit :

> May I chime in a bit here? This prodding of the scheme interpreter  
> is one of the few things I do not like in the lilypond syntax. I do  
> love LilyPond and as a programmer at heart, I adore its syntax.  
> However, as a programmer, it is my duty to let the computer do the  
> work instead of the user. This resonates badly with the scheme  
> intergration in the lilypond syntax. To my mind, it should be  
> possible for the parser or lexer to do a lot more work so that the  
> scheme interpreter is woken-up automatically instead of being  
> prompted by a token in the syntax. This will result in a much  
> cleaner .ly files.
>
> I'm sure we've all had that feeling. Starting of with typesetting a  
> simple melody and then enhancing the lay-out bit by bit until the  
> notes are buried underneath a stack of lay-out commands. I do my  
> best to separate lay-out from content, but there are situations  
> where this is either not possible (like in fingering instructions)  
> or not advisable (like with the dynamics). Opening up one of my  
> guitar scores, I am daunted by the fact that it looks so complicated  
> that I need lots of comments not to get lost.
>
> I am fully aware that it will be a lot of work on the developers  
> side to implement this. But please consider it. Let it burn on the  
> back-stove for a while, let it stew and when you are ready, please  
> consider implementing it. It would make the source-code of our nice  
> looking scores so much simpler to read. (And yes, I did consider  
> doing it myself, but I'm more a COBOL-guy ;-) )


Bullshit.
Tis its extensibility that make LilyPond more likely to be able to
fit the more users needs, and its extensibility is made possible
because LilyPond is programmable (by the users). How could you get
rid off a full featured language -- scheme -- from LilyPond input
files without reimplementing it, badly most certainly.

Granted, so that input files look good, the scheme parts should be
"hidden" in library files. But If your input files are full of scheme
hacks, then it's your problem not being able to write the appropriate
libraries, and it's not a LilyPond issue.

Best regards,
Nicolas