Re: allowing \f and \F

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:26 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> It's likely a more important consideration to divide the Guile and
>> LilyPond namespace rather than the LilyPond and user space.
>>
>> To wit, convert
>>
>> xxx = \something
>>
>> into
>>
>> #(define $xxx $something)
>
> I assume that this would mean having to use #(define ....) every time
> we wanted to define a variable/command (e.g. notes = { c d e } and red
> = \twear #'color #red).

Huh?  Why?

> From a user's point of view that would be both cryptic and a bit
> inconvenient.  I consider manupilating variables a fundamental aspect
> of using Lilypond, and its syntax should be as simple as possible.

I don't understand what you are getting at.  The translation between
Scheme identifiers and LilyPond identifiers would be different, but that
does not mean that you have to change any LilyPond code, just Scheme
code.  The main problem would be that #x and \x would no longer be
interchangeable in most contexts as \x would be equivalent to #$x
(without special interpretation) or to $$x (the first $ being the
"active Scheme" $ inside of LilyPond, the second $ being the new
identifier prefix).

-- 
David Kastrup