Re: nopc -- Proposed Predefines

[Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool)]

Well, the fun is that it seems that Scheme creators like predefined commands as well. Think of the commands
cadr, caddr, cadddr, which are essentially:
(car (list-tail mylist 2)) (car (list-tail mylist 3))  (car (list-tail mylist 4))
In SRFI-1, the first extension of the Scheme language even includes the commands:
(first mylist) which equals (car mylist).
(second mylist) which equals (cadr mylist), ie. (car (list-tail mylist 2))
...
(tenth mylist) which would equal (cadddddddddr mylist) if one had had the idea to define such a command, ie. (car (list-tail mylist 10))

Am I insane that I find this complete nonsense?
Learning and using two commands, car and list-tail versus more than a dozen commands for the same purpose.

Bert



James E. Bailey wrote:

personally, I like having predefined commands. I don't know how to say \key fis \major in scheme, and I don't want to know. Leaving that kind of predefined command to the editor forces everyone to use an (or the) editor that can send that kind of information. The predefined commands are a really great thing for end users.

Am 14.07.2008 um 10:31 schrieb Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool):

Very good point :-) This is my real question as well.
I remember this is not the first time that a new predefined command is added (or requested) for something that could be better handled with the editor.

Bert

James E. Bailey wrote:

I don't know if this is really crowding the LilyPond namespace with a feature that as far as I know is in one tool attached to a specific editor. I mean, if that's the case, why have any editor features as predefined commands in the first place?