Re: LilyPond strings and \markup

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:18:56PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/8/17 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> 
> > Alternately, we could be stricter about this -- I wouldn't mind if
> > we insisted that people use
> >  \override foo #'bar = #5
> > instead of allowing the non-# form, if then we could state as a
> > general rule that overrides required a # after the =
> 
> That's fine for simple overrides with numbers and strings, but would
> be very confusing for novice users trying to wrestle with the correct
> syntax for markup in scheme (when they're probably already struggling
> with \markup {  } syntax).

Good point, although as a general rule I'd favor simplifying the
non-scheme stuff at the possible expense of scheme stuff.
Besides, if somebody's setting a list, they already have to know
to remove the #' from the #'(1.0 -2.3) when putting it into
scheme.

Anyway, we'll discuss this later -- my main point was to encourage
Mark to learn those languages.  :)

Cheers,
- Graham