@Urs
I've thought about this some more. I don't know if you were interested
in wrapping the functions that use opts and props in a macro, but I
noticed a lot of redundancy so I gave it a try.
\version "2.19.80" \include "oll-core/package.ily" #(define-macro
(define-void-function-with-options vars preds rulings . body)
`(define-void-function ,(append '(opts) vars) ,(append
'(ly:context-mod?) preds)
(define rules
,rulings)
(let ((props (context-mod->props rules #t opts)))
. ,body)))
testRules =
#(define-void-function-with-options () ()
`((ind ,number? 5)
(target ,symbol?)
(payload)
(accepted-arg ,fraction? opt)
(accepted-without-type opt)
(msg ,string? "No message given"))
(pretty-print props))
\testRules \with { msg ="Something" unk ="Unknown option" target =
something
% accepted-arg = 7/4 % accepted-without-type = #(ly:make-moment
3/16) }
Again, tell me if you find it convenient.
Hm.
The definition of testRules looks pretty good. What I'm not so sure
about is that this would actually imply creating -with-options variants
of *all* define- macros, and I'm not sure if that would add unnecessary
complexity compared to "simply" calling context-mod->props within a
function definition.
Actually, I start thinking if this doesn't call for a "proper" solution
to be added to LilyPond itself. Of course I'm hijacking ly:context-mod?
which is semantically there for a different purpose.
What I would like to see is a different predicate, say, ly:properties?
that internally is a simple key-value alist but that can be entered with
the same \with {} syntax.
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
