On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 15:59, Heikki Johannes Junes wrote: > Currently, my favourite pending issue for publishing the next stable branch is > the Fret Diagram markup, which however seem to already be in a fairly mature > state. After that is completed as a markup (Carl may decide), I'm happy since > there is a big possibility that NoteEdit project will take this feature > immediately into use already as a markup.
I'm feeling pretty good about the use of fret diagram markups. My current (somewhat limited) development time is being spent on trying to get Fret Diagrams into a context and engraver. > > For the (near) future developement branches I could list the following issues: > > - Develope Fret Diagrams: the same syntax may be used for music and markup > ( Just go on the good work Carl! ) > I've thought about this for quite a while. It seems to me that music expressions need to be written to be consistent with the lilypond music parser, but markups aren't parsed by the music parser. Therefore, it seems to me that markups can easily have syntax that's easier for people to enter than music expressions. Nearly everybody who's talked about some kind of requested syntax for fret diagrams has proposed something quite similar to either the current fret-diagram syntax or the current fret-diagram-terse syntax. Personally, I'd be in favor of keeping something similar to the current syntax available for use in markups. The fret-diagram-verbose syntax appears to be quite convenient for calling from an engraver, so I can understand the desire to keep it. I'll know more, once I get the engraver going. Is it a problem to have different interfaces for fret diagrams that come from music expressions and those that come from markups? Thanks for the comments and questions. I'd welcome any more insight on this subject. Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
