[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Defining new Scheme predicates
From: |
Andrew Bernard |
Subject: |
RE: Defining new Scheme predicates |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:20:23 +1100 |
Hi Simon,
Thanks! Exactly perfect. Sometimes the completely obvious escapes me. Better
have another coffee.
Most appreciated.
I suppose of course that to make it a predicate without the preliminary let
block (not that I have any objection to that) one would have to modify
lilypond internals, which would not be desirable.
Andrew
- Defining new Scheme predicates, Andrew Bernard, 2016/11/06
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, Simon Albrecht, 2016/11/06
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, Simon Albrecht, 2016/11/06
- RE: Defining new Scheme predicates,
Andrew Bernard <=
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, Thomas Morley, 2016/11/06
- RE: Defining new Scheme predicates, Urs Liska, 2016/11/07
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, Richard Shann, 2016/11/07
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, Urs Liska, 2016/11/07
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, Urs Liska, 2016/11/07
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, David Kastrup, 2016/11/07
- Re: Defining new Scheme predicates, David Kastrup, 2016/11/07