[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Wish/suggestion: \import statement

From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Wish/suggestion: \import statement
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:33:58 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0

Am 07.11.2014 18:46, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

Am 07.11.2014 18:01, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

Am 07.11.2014 12:31, schrieb David Kastrup:
What we need is to drag the concept of modules into LilyPond,
What do you mean by this?
Do you suggest to implement a module approach that is somewhat
parallel to Scheme's use-module approach?
No, more likely an approach that is a good wrapper around use-module.
OK, then I've understood you correctly.

Or rather try to "package" a module approach in Scheme modules somehow?
My impression is that defining and loading modules should be simpler
than defining (and to some extent using) Scheme modules. At least
there should be some syntactic sugar so one can use a "\" command to
import a library.
I agree with that.  Unless we have additional functionality we need to
wrap, however, we likely do not need to avoid Scheme for _exporting_ a
library: the expected minimal skill levels of library providers are
higher than those of library users.
Yes, sure.

Do you think this is feasible now or in the foreseeable future?
While willing to invest thought and time in the issue I know that my
Scheme skills are still quite far away from being tremenduously
helpful in such a development.
I think it should be feasible.  The main problem is figuring out what to
export by default and what not.

And markups are really messed up, defining macros, a bunch of functions,
properties and stuff.

That's a proof of a previous statement of mine: What you are writing here is arleady over my head. (Which is actually the reason I didn't respond initially).


reply via email to

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