Jonathan Kulp wrote Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:22 AM
Graham Percival wrote:
> Yes, come up with another score marking. Granted, it might get
[snip]
I agree, that's best for the moment.
Before I make a bunch of replacements and a patch, can anyone see
a potential problem with changing the example in LM 5.1.5 to use
these functions instead:
%%%%%%
mpdolce = #(make-dynamic-script (markup #:hspace 1 #:translate
(cons 5 0)
#:line(#:dynamic "mp" #:text #:italic "dolce" )))
inst = #(define-music-function (parser location string) (string?)
(make-music
'TextScriptEvent
'direction UP
'text (markup #:bold (#:box string))))
\relative c'' {
\tempo 4=50
a4.\mpdolce d8 cis4--\glissando a | b4 bes a2
\once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'padding = #2.0
\inst "clarinet"
cis4.\< d8 e4 fis | g8(\! fis)-. e( d)-. cis2
}
%%%%%%
I got the "inst" function from the LSR and it seems like a good
one to use in a discussion of stylesheets and storing variables in
separate \include files. If it looks o.k. then I'll change all of
the instances of the previous "tempoMark" to "inst" in LM 5.1.5.
OK. Looks fine to me. Let me have a patch. (I shall be
away from 14 to 25 May, so I won't be able to respond during
that time.)
Now there's also a "tempoMark" function defined in NR 6.1.2,
Interfaces for programmers. My instinct is to leave this one
alone--it is not obsolete, since the predefined \tempo command
does not take a $padding argument like this bit of scheme does,
right?
Yes, let's leave this as it is.
Here's the code in question:
%%%%%%%
tempoMark = #(define-music-function (parser location padding
marktext)
(number? string?)
#{
\once \override Score . RehearsalMark #'padding = $padding
\once \override Score . RehearsalMark #'extra-spacing-width =
#'(+inf.0 . -inf.0)
\mark \markup { \bold $marktext }
#})
\relative c'' {
c2 e
\tempoMark #3.0 #"Allegro"
g c
}
%%%%%%
Am I right not to mess with this one?
Best,
Jon
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:31:49PM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
I'm looking at this example now and am not sure what to do with
it. While it's
true that the tempoMark scheme function itself is not necessary
now that \tempo
does the same thing, it's also true that the point of this
passage in the LM
5.1.5 is to show how use definitions and to place them in
separate \include
files, not to teach "how to display a tempo marking." Maybe I
should come up
with some other score marking that could be used instead of a
tempo marking, or
do you think that whole macro can just be deleted from the
example and the
"mpdolce" macro will suffice as an example to stick in a
definitions file?
Trevor, do you have thoughts on this? This example also occurs
in NR 6.1.2,
Interfaces for programmers.
Jon
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Graham Percival
<gra...@percival-music.ca>
wrote:
Where in the world is Carmen Sandi... oops, wrong example.
If "the \tempoMark" exaple is in the NR, then Jonathan
should
figure out what you're talking about and prepare the patch.
If "the \tempoMark" example is in the LM... then hey, this
is
simple enough, Jonathan should still prepare a patch.
Unless it'd
destroy the continuity of the LM or something, in which case
he
should consult with Trevor.
Cheers,
- Graham
--
Jonathan Kulp
http://www.jonathankulp.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
