On Friday 07 April 2006 00:50, Geoff Horton wrote: > > Just read sections 11.1.3 and 11.1.6 in the manual. > > That's far more complicated than I want, and even further more > complicated than a musician who's not a computer programmer is going > to want to deal with--please note that those sections are in the > chapter on "Interfaces for Programmers". Why should I have to know > Scheme and the details of LilyPond implementation if all I want to do > is save a little typing and come up with a less busy-looking input > file?
I agree with you that this would be nice. > LilyPond is powerful, and I'd like to see more of that power made more > easily accessible. I'm not asking for changes to the basic syntax at > all--anything I'd come up with would be a totally optional pre-pass > system. I have plans to make some improvent to the parser, in order to make \relative soft-codable. A side-effect of this will probably be that custom high-order music functions can be written; for example, you could add a function \define-function, to easily define a simple music function. It could work something like this: \define-music-function {\foo \x \y} { c8 \x d8 \y } ... { \foo e16 {f g} } => { c8 e16 d8 {f16 g16} } The usefulness of this kind of function is disputed among developers, so it might not become part of the official lilypond distribution. -- Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user