Re: Variable weirdness

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Hello,

in these situations I use a little scheme-function like this:

parserDefine =
#(define-scheme-function (key val)(symbol? scheme?)
  (ly:parser-define! key val))

!!!(I will correct this later, when I am on real computer ....)

This scheme-function works on every level defining a variable into the current parser.

HTH
Jan-Peter

Am 7. November 2016 23:55:00 MEZ, schrieb Simon Albrecht <address@hidden>:

On 07.11.2016 17:56, David Kastrup wrote:
 David Sumbler <address@hidden> writes:

 I had the following lines in the main file of my current Lilypond
 project:

 \book {
    \bookOutputName "../firstCello"
      partName = "Cello 1"
      \include "frontcover.ily"
      \bookpart { %music...

 The file "frontcover.ily" contains a \bookpart block which prints a
 front cover with title, composer etc. - these are defined elsewhere.
   But it needs one more variable, viz. 'partName'.

 I discovered that Lilypond will not accept a variable definition in
 Lilypond format in the position I have put it: at the top level of a
 \book block.  Nor will it accept it in a \bookpart block.  But at a
 higher or a lower level, it will.

 This seems a bit weird (to say the least), in view of the fact that by
 replacing the line
  partName = "Cello 1"
 with the Scheme form
  #(define partName "Cello 1")
 everything works as intended.

 Is there any useful reason why a variable cannot be defined in Lilypond
 format in these contexts?
 Because they would not be local to these contexts?

In other words, to make this work, books and bookparts would need their 
own namespaces, am I right? What would be the drawbacks of that? I 
daresay it would be pretty intuitive to use, and I’ve also found myself 
wanting that feature in the past, mainly to simplify \include structures.

Best, Simon


lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.