Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes:
> Am 30.06.2016 um 14:47 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes:
>>
>>> Am 30.06.2016 um 14:37 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>
>>>> How does that differ from symbols?
>>> Ah, not in the Scheme domain, of course. But you can't *enter* them as
>>> LilyPond code, isn't it?
>> Can you give an example for symbols "entered as LilyPond code" as
>> opposed to "in the Scheme domain"?
>
> Ah, I mean
>
> #(define %9sn5@ "a")
> %9sn5@ = "a"
>
> but ...
>
>>
>> Do you mean "without using #" here? Why would it be relevant to XML how
>> you entered a symbol?
>
> of course that doesn't matter here as you can always write
>
> \override NoteHead.id = #'09fjwg@
Well, there are a few strings requiring more complex input:
guile> (string->symbol "()")
#{\(\)}#
guile> (string->symbol "3")
#{3}#
But numbers in particular we'd likely convert to actual number keys.
And it's not like we don't have symbols in a few other places (tags, for
example). So all in all, I think it should not be too much of a
nuisance.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
