Re: identifiers with numbers - new LSR-snippet

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=1044
> "Workaround for using numbers as part of Lilypond variable names"
> is a new snippet from a member of the german forum.
>
> I'd like to reject it for several reasons:
>
> 1. There's the possibility to use `identifier.1' with newer devel-versions
> 2. Even in 2.18.2 it was possible to use `identifier¹' and `"identifier1"'

Both are not really convincing reasons as they are doing different
things.  However, the snippet states that

part1 = ...

does not work and uses (define part1 ...) instead.

That's not good since

"part1" = ...

works and has slightly different semantics from (define ...).

Also \"part1" works.


> 3. I seem to remember there is a problem or limitation when
> scheme-variable containing music are called like: { $identifier1 }
>
> Could someone refresh my memory about the last point?

No, that's absolutely equivalent to \"identifier1" .  Where it breaks
down is when writing {$identifier1} or similar: LilyPond requires no
separating space for \... but Scheme most certainly does.

But when the syntax is correct, semantically the two are perfectly
identical.

\part.1 in contrast is slightly different.  I'll work on improvements by
and by but at the current point of time this is not really at a "proudly
announceable by snippets" state.  It still has drawbacks and irks.

-- 
David Kastrup