On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:39 AM, David Nalesnik <david.nales...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:34 AM, SoundsFromSound > <soundsfromso...@gmail.com> wrote: >> David Nalesnik wrote >>> Haven't examined the other alternatives proposed, but here's something >>> I just did. It's based on a rewrite of functions in >>> lily/accidental.cc >>> >>> HTH, >>> David >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lilypond-user mailing list >> >>> lilypond-user@ >> >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>> >>> >>> accidental-brackets.ly (3K) >>> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/197640/0/accidental-brackets.ly> >> >> Wow. David, this looks amazing. Perfect and exactly what the doctor ordered >> - well, for what I need :) Hope it helps others too! Huge thanks for this. >> Works like a charm. >> >> Ben >> > > > Thanks! > > On a side note, I'm becoming more and more convinced that C++ stencil > stuff should be ported to Scheme. It makes user modification so much > easier. >
Though, on a technical note, I'm unsure of the best way to handle the pattern of repeatedly modifying a variable's value which the C++ source does in stencil functions. I've tried to avoid use of set! -- instead declaring new variables in the course of a let* block. But maybe set! isn't so un-schemic and is better for eliminating levels of nesting? David _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
