Re: markup commands leaks (Re: Scheme question on strict substitution)

[Nicolas Sceaux]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> I think it would be better if we redefine the builtin markup commands
> in the toplevel .ly module as in
>
> markup-init.ly:
>
>  #(for-each 
>     (lambda (command)
>      (module-define! (current-module)  
>                      (markup-command-name command)
>                      (markup-command-function command))
>      ..copy make-XXXX-too..                
>                    )
>     builtin-markup-commands) 
>
> Since nested scopes import the toplevel scope automatically, this
> should work.
>
> Of course, the built-in markups could come from a (scm builtin-markup)
> module. That's even to be preferred, as the namespace is too large
> anyway.

(Sorry for being so long with this bug)

Still, the builtin-markup module should export its make-COMMAND-markup
and COMMAND-markup functions, for they are used in some of the files
loaded by lily.scm. As these functions will have to be imported in both
the (lily) modules and the toplevel .ly module, and also some other (scm
...) modules, the namespace issue won't be solved anyhow.

I propose that:

1) builtin markup commands are still defined in the (lily) module and
   exported, using a `define-builtin-markup-command' macro;

2) user markup commands are defined in the toplevel ly module, by
   creating a `define-markup-command' in markup-init.ly.

nicolas