On 06/13/2017 11:16 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
(define-markup-command bla)
does not define bla, but rather bla-markup, make-bla-markup and bits and
pieces used for signatures and the markup macro.
Even then, creating music functions on the fly _and_ using them requires
use of $(define-music-func
Paul writes:
> On 06/12/2017 01:00 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> The use case is similar to that of lambda: creating a procedure on the
>> fly without giving it a name.
>
> Ah, got it. Then makes sense to avoid having to use on-the-fly, by
> converting those named on-the-fly procedures into actu
On 06/12/2017 01:00 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
The use case is similar to that of lambda: creating a procedure on the
fly without giving it a name.
Ah, got it. Then makes sense to avoid having to use on-the-fly, by
converting those named on-the-fly procedures into actual markup commands.
Jus
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2017-06-11 15:08 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>>
>> \on-the-fly gets as first argument a function that it calls on the
>> second argument as if the first argument was actually a markup command.
>>
>> Why not make the first argument actually a markup command?
>>
>> It would ap
2017-06-11 15:08 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>
> \on-the-fly gets as first argument a function that it calls on the
> second argument as if the first argument was actually a markup command.
>
> Why not make the first argument actually a markup command?
>
> It would appear that we are mostly talking a
\on-the-fly gets as first argument a function that it calls on the
second argument as if the first argument was actually a markup command.
Why not make the first argument actually a markup command?
It would appear that we are mostly talking about a closed set here
anyway. So why
\markup \on-th
