Re: Putting a \layout block in a Scheme macro

[Jérôme Plût]

> \version "2.19.54"
> 
> BlankStaff =
> #(define-void-function  (count) (integer?)
>   (let* ((blankstaff #{ \score { { s1 \break } } #} )
>          (layout     #{ \layout { \context { \Staff \remove "Bar_engraver" }
> } #} )
>          (bookpart   (ly:make-book-part (make-list count blankstaff)))
>          (book       (ly:make-book $defaultpaper $defaultheader)))
>     (ly:output-def-set-variable! layout 'indent (ly:mm 0))
>     (ly:output-def-set-variable! layout 'ragged-right #f)
>     (ly:book-add-bookpart! book bookpart)
>     (ly:book-process book $defaultpaper layout (ly:parser-output-name))
> ))
> 
> \BlankStaff 4

Thanks for the answer, but:

your code produces a failed assertion in the lilypond binary:

lilypond: 
/home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/src/lilypond-git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-release-unstable/lily/book.cc:258:
 void Book::process_score(SCM, Paper_book*, Output_def*): Assertion `0' failed.

This assertion is unclear but, looking at the source file, it
obviously means that the top-level book content was neither a Score
nor a markup list (the execution path seems to go ly:book-process ->
Book::process -> Book::process_score). I leave it to the experts from
there!

And while we are there: your solution seems to create a new book for
the score. Is that the case? How would one adapt it to incorporate the
score at top-level?



<rant>
(More generally, why is it that painful to translate Lilypond
language to Scheme? I would have imagined that there would be some
(relatively) small number of primitive functions in the binary
exported from Scheme, and that Lilypond would be mainly a set of
macros on top of that - a la TeX and LaTeX. But the whole data
structures in ly/scm are completely different, and the syntax makes
absolutely no sense in either incarnation. Is there a design document
somewhere that I missed?)
</rant>

-- 
        Jérôme Plût