Re: is shapeSlur broken?

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Hello David,

> I would write #(shape-slur offsets) here: there is no need for an
> immediate Scheme expression here (the point of $ over # is that the
> syntactical function of the $ expression is determined by its expression
> type, but here the syntactical function needed is "Scheme" anyway).
thank you!
> > Variables in musicfunctions now are available by there name without
> > the preceding $.
> > The $-sign now introduces a scheme-expression and returns the result
> > directly ... now here should be more explanation, that I am not able
> > to put in words right now ;-)
> $some-expression is equivalent to \name if you had written
> name = #some-expression
> some times earlier where an assignment is allowed.  Actually, whenever
> name is a valid LilyPond identifier name as well as a valid Scheme
> identifier name, $name and \name are perfectly equivalent.
Cheers, Jan-Peter