Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > Am Mi., 16. Jan. 2019 um 00:14 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> >> Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes: >> >> > Hi David, >> >> \test apparently expects a string argument. >> > >> > Aaargh, sorry, stupid me, and stupid copy'n'paste error. So, another try: >> > >> > \version "2.19.82" >> > >> > test = #(define-scheme-function (suffix) (string?) #{ >> > \book { >> > \bookOutputSuffix #suffix >> > \score { >> > d4 >> > } >> > } >> > #} ) >> > >> > \test "surname" >> > >> > (still) causes a "Bad expression type" error. >> >> Ah, well. Turns out that copying the code for \xxx here where \xxx was >> a book identifier was not really a good idea before anybody figures out >> and defines the difference between a book and a bookpart. Currently it >> is not viable to distinguish them. >> >> \book { \test "surname" } >> >> could conceivably just close its eyes and say "ok, let's treat it as a >> book rather than a bookpart" but doesn't. Does anybody have an idea >> what is supposed to distinguish a book from a bookpart outside of actual >> >> \book { >> \bookpart { ... } } >> >> usage? > > For layout vs paper we have is-layout vs is-paper. > Couldn't we set some variable/property like is-book/is-bookpart for > book vs bookpart > ?
We probably could. I am not sure it even works (or makes sense) to create a bookpart independent from its containing book with our current code base but at least the treatment of books could move forward. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user