> Can anyone recommend a book or website for learning Scheme as it
> currently exists in Lilypond? So that I won’t start using deprecated
> features or whatever. I’m fluent in Lua (which I like a lot).
I found Kent Dybvig's book to be useful and readable: http://scheme.com/tspl4/.
"Scheme as it c
Am 2012-06-10 um 11:58 schrieb David Kastrup:
Henning Hraban Ramm writes:
Please. Stop.
This discussion is going nowhere.
And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
The architecture of LilyPond needs work to
On 10/06/12 08:14, David Kastrup wrote:
The discussion is not useful. It distracts from work needing to get
done, without offering perspectives that are actually feasible since
they are neither thought through nor have the resources for tackling
them _if_ they made sense and were planned out.
Henning Hraban Ramm writes:
> Please. Stop.
>
> This discussion is going nowhere.
> And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
> than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
Actually, I am not as much discussing ideal worlds rather than the
misconception that
Please. Stop.
This discussion is going nowhere.
And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
Whoever believes to know better than our currently most active
programmer should come up with some useful code.
Gr
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 07/06/12 05:24, David Kastrup wrote:
>> You picked a _Scheme_ function, not a music function. That does not, I
>> repeat _not_ at all show how you embed this thing into your LilyPond
>> code, and we were talking about using D as an _extension_ language of
>>
On 07/06/12 05:24, David Kastrup wrote:
You picked a _Scheme_ function, not a music function. That does not, I
repeat _not_ at all show how you embed this thing into your LilyPond
code, and we were talking about using D as an _extension_ language of
LilyPond, not about its usefulness as a genera
On 8 June 2012 07:44, Matthew Collett wrote:
> SICP does for computer programming what Linderholm's classic 'Mathematics
> Made Difficult' does for arithmetic -- except that in this case the authors
> are entirely serious.
>
It didn’t seem too scary to me, or at least the start of it...
As far
On 8/06/2012, at 1:54 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
> The first few chapters of SICP would probably be very helpful.
>
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-10.html
SICP does for computer programming what Linderholm's classic 'Mathematics Made
Difficult' does for arithmetic -- except
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 07/06/12 17:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I think that a larger barrier is actually the use of features like
>> modules in a non-documented and non-obvious way.
>
> Can you explain this in greater detail? Would be useful to understand
> this better before reply
On 07/06/12 17:31, David Kastrup wrote:
I think that a larger barrier is actually the use of features like
modules in a non-documented and non-obvious way.
Can you explain this in greater detail? Would be useful to understand this
better before replying to your earlier, longer message on the
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> Well, it's that unfamiliarity that I'm talking about, really. My
> point isn't that Scheme is bad in itself but that using it means that
> virtually _everyone_ wanting to script or work on LilyPond has to
> learn a new language, syntax and set of programming par
On 07/06/12 14:54, Tim McNamara wrote:
Hmm. The way you wrote that, it appears that the fault is not with Scheme but
the with one's unfamiliarity with Scheme. This is certainly *my* problem with
understanding the Scheme-based extensions in Lilypond. And yet when I look at
them I can intuit
On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>
> On 05/06/12 08:53, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I would doubt that this would have been the fault of Scheme. More
>> likely a problem of the Scheme/LilyPond interface choices, but those
>> choices don't go away when replacing Scheme.
>
>
David Kastrup writes:
> So please, try again. This time picking something that actually
> solves a task in LilyPond.
>
> Something like
> Documentation/snippets/adding-extra-fingering-with-scheme.ly (which
> actually does a ridiculous amount using Scheme rather than #{...#} but
> let's just assu
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> Scheme (and all other LISP dialects), Haskell and so on have a starkly
> different notational style and set of programming paradigms that make
> them difficult to adapt to from current mainstream programming
> approaches. That puts a barrier in the way of lots o
On 05/06/12 08:53, David Kastrup wrote:
I would doubt that this would have been the fault of Scheme. More
likely a problem of the Scheme/LilyPond interface choices, but those
choices don't go away when replacing Scheme.
No, it was the fault of the unfamiliar Scheme syntax. A colleague used to
17 matches
Mail list logo
