[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: `#(define page-breaking foo)' vs. `page-breaking = #foo'

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: `#(define page-breaking foo)' vs. `page-breaking = #foo'
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:55:41 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Mark Polesky <address@hidden> writes:

> Any reason why the 'page-breaking \paper variable tends to
> be declared with a scheme definition?  I typically see it
> like this in the docs:
>   #(define page-breaking ly:minimal-breaking)
> I prefer to use this form though:
>   page-breaking = #ly:minimal-breaking
> In my commit b0a027f, I changed the standard setting for
> this in, and nothing broke as far as
> I can tell.  Any opposition to changing the other
> scheme-style declarations in the docs?

There is a difference between the two forms.  The former sneaks by
Lilypond's parser completely (executing it at scanning time), the latter
executes the assignment itself in sync with the Lilypond parser.

In borderline cases, the second might lead to more sane results.
However, if you write something like

page-breaking = #ly:minimal-breaking
#(define xxx page-breaking)

it is conceivable that xxx is defined as the _old_ value of

I don't particularly like this asynchronicity.  I think that your
proposed change feels saner, all in all.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]