Re: Consistent vertical alignment of annotations, disable time signiture

[Robert Hickman]

> That's not Lisp/Scheme syntax but LilyPond syntax.  There is a manual for it. 
>  Several, in fact.

I'm aware.

\context {
  \Staff
  \omit TimeSignature
}

If I'm understanding this correctly, this would be written something
like the following in a typical OO syntax:

x =  Staff.clone();
x.omit(TimeSignature);


On 17 April 2018 at 16:40, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Robert Hickman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Thanks, I have a vague familiarity with lisps, but have never used scheme.
>>
>> I'm not certain how to visually parse a statment like \Staff \omit
>> TimeSignature. It kind of looks like \Staff is a function taking two
>> arguments, where \omit is either a constant or a function that returns
>> a constant, and TimeSignature is some kind of constant. But it could
>> also be that TimeSigniture is being passed to \omit, which returns to
>> \staff. It's difficult to read because it doesn't parenthesise like
>> typical programming languages.
>
> That's not Lisp/Scheme syntax but LilyPond syntax.  There is a manual
> for it.  Several, in fact.
>
> \context {
>   \Staff
>   \omit TimeSignature
> }
>
> is a context definition that starts by copying the existing "Staff"
> context definition and adds an omission of the stencil for the
> TimeSignature grob (graphical object) to it, then takes this as a new
> context definition.  Since this copies the original "\name Staff"
> definition of the origin Staff definition, it overrides the existing
> Staff definition.  If you specified a different name, it would instead
> create a new context definition under the given name.
>
> I am not enthused with that syntax either.
>
> --
> David Kastrup