On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:20:29AM +0100, Valentin Villenave wrote: > Le 16 mars 2009 16:31, Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> a écrit : > > I don't think anybody else has replied, so I'll take a stab at it. > > I've been working at a draft reply for a few days, but never found > what I was looking for.
And clearly what you were looking for was **me**. :) > > Again, I'd rather use text for text dynamics. What about \cresc > > #"cresc. poco a poco" ? i.e. if \cresc is used by itself, it > > prints "cresc.", but if you provide the optional argument, that's > > used instead of the default text? > > Yes, but I'd really like to use this \cresc command of yours *after* > the note (not before, as it is now). Of course. IMO, that's the most important part of any dynamic work. > Which is why, rather than a C++ parser change, what I'd really like to > have is a (define-music-tweak) function, that could act like > define-music-function but that would *not* take the music as an > argument, that would just take the string and cons' it as a 'tweak > property. I am absolutely not arguing against this. The only question is who will produce such a wonder. :) If it's doable in pure scheme, then I guess that Frederic (sorry, no accents) can do it without recompiling lilypond? If so, that would be awesome. Anybody want to hazard a guess about this possibility? Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
