LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things for users. As another small step along these lines, would it make sense to free booleans

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

2016-01-05 17:48 GMT+01:00 Paul Morris : > Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme > syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer > needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things for users. > > As

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Paul Morris wrote: > Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme > syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer > needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things for users. > >

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

Am 05.01.2016 um 18:06 schrieb Abraham Lee: On Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Paul Morris wrote: Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer needing # for numbers). This has

Introduce new markup-command draw-squiggle-line. (issue 281210043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

Reviewers: , Message: Please review Description: Introduce new markup-command draw-squiggle-line. Change regtest /input/regression/markup-line-styles.ly accordingly Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/281210043/ Affected files (+140, -3 lines): M

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

On 05.01.2016 18:45, David Kastrup wrote: Paul Morris writes: Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things for

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

Paul Morris writes: > Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use > scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and > no longer needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things > for users. > > As another small step

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

2016-01-05 21:05 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Simon Albrecht writes: > >> On 05.01.2016 18:45, David Kastrup wrote: >>> Paul Morris writes: >>> Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme syntax in

Re: Introduce new markup-command draw-squiggle-line. (issue 281210043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/281210043/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/281210043/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode326 scm/define-markup-commands.scm:326: @code{angularity], @code{height} and

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

Thomas Morley writes: [...] >>> Could \true and \false be implemented as parser keywords? >> >> Probably. It would be a lot of effort, and they would consequently >> behave different from other fixed expressions assigned to identifiers >> (being unavailable in Scheme

Error in git-cl creating a new issue

I just submitted a small change to the Contributors Guide using git-cl. The patch got into codereview.appspot.com, but not into sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/. I let git-cl create a new issue for the patch, but it produced a bunch of error messages. Does anyone have an idea about

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

Am 05.01.2016 um 21:22 schrieb Thomas Morley: [...] To illustrate. Look at the output from the following compiled in a ly-file: true = ##t false = ##f #(define v1 (vector true false true)) #(define v2 #(true false true)) #(newline) #(write-me "v1 " v1) #(write-me "v2 " v2) #(write-me

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

Paul Morris writes: >> On Jan 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Don't like this since it will lead to people using "true" and "false" in >> Scheme programming, making for non-portable/non-idiomatic Scheme. Also >> #f and #t are self-quoting

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > > Don't like this since it will lead to people using "true" and "false" in > Scheme programming, making for non-portable/non-idiomatic Scheme. Also > #f and #t are self-quoting forms while false and true are symbols. This >

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

Simon Albrecht writes: > On 05.01.2016 18:45, David Kastrup wrote: >> Paul Morris writes: >> >>> Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use >>> scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and >>> no

Re: LilyPond boolean syntax? \true and \false

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 5:15 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > > The two are not intended to be kept separate regarding their > _identifiers_. It's one of LilyPond's strong suits (and a > modularization nightmare) that Scheme and LilyPond all access the same > variables and values and are