Am Saturday, 17. September 2011, 15:29:45 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > >> I added the variable definition pf = #(make-dynamic-script "pf") to > >> my ly source, but is there any reason why this should not be added > >> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly? That already contains fp as a dynamic > >> marking, why not pf? > > > > I don't see why it couldn't contain more permutations of 'p', 'f' > > and even 'z' (I seem to remember that I had to manually create a > > dynamic for a few pieces that had things like szfp or sfffp (or > > similar - I cannot remember). > > IMHO, this unnecessarily pollutes the macro namespace. Just imagine > that someone wants to define a macro which prints `Pianoforte' in some > way, and she decides to call it \pf just to discover that this name is > already taken...
Where's the problem? You can always override already used command names... BTW, in my orchestrallily package I have two new dynamic scripts, which I need regularly: \fp and \sffz And I have \pdolce, and some bracketed / parenthesized dynamics. Cheers, Reinhold -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
