Re: Variable weirdness

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Hello,

here is a demo of the code:

%%% snip
\version "2.19.49"

% the 2.18 version would just use parser and layout in the signature and 
the additional parser-argument in the ly:parser-define! call
parserDefine =
#(define-scheme-function (vkey val)(symbol? scheme?)
   (ly:parser-define! vkey val))

%%%% Demo

\parserDefine music \relative c'' { c b bes a }

{ \music }
%%% /snip

HTH
Jan-Peter

Am 08.11.2016 um 07:06 schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
> Hello,
>
> in these situations I use a little scheme-function like this:
>
> parserDefine =
> #(define-scheme-function (key val)(symbol? scheme?)
> (ly:parser-define! key val))
>
> !!!(I will correct this later, when I am on real computer ....)
>
> This scheme-function works on every level defining a variable into the 
> current parser.
>
> HTH
> Jan-Peter
>
> Am 7. November 2016 23:55:00 MEZ, schrieb Simon Albrecht 
> <address@hidden>:
>
>     On 07.11.2016 17:56, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>         David Sumbler <address@hidden> writes:
>
>             I had the following lines in the main file of my current
>             Lilypond project: \book { \bookOutputName "../firstCello"
>             partName = "Cello 1" \include "frontcover.ily" \bookpart {
>             %music... The file "frontcover.ily" contains a \bookpart
>             block which prints a front cover with title, composer etc.
>             - these are defined elsewhere. But it needs one more
>             variable, viz. 'partName'. I discovered that Lilypond will
>             not accept a variable definition in Lilypond format in the
>             position I have put it: at the top level of a \book block.
>             Nor will it accept it in a \bookpart block. But at a
>             higher or a lower level, it will. This seems a bit weird
>             (to say the least), in view of the fact that by replacing
>             the line partName = "Cello 1" with the Scheme form
>             #(define partName "Cello 1") everything works as intended.
>             Is there any useful reason why a variable cannot be
>             defined in Lilypond format in these contexts? 
>
>         Because they would not be local to these contexts? 
>
>
>     In other words, to make this work, books and bookparts would need their
>     own namespaces, am I right? What would be the drawbacks of that? I
>     daresay it would be pretty intuitive to use, and I’ve also found myself
>     wanting that feature in the past, mainly to simplify \include structures.
>
>     Best, Simon
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     lilypond-user mailing list
>     address@hidden
>     https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
> -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail 
> gesendet.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user