On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:42 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:55 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> I don't see why you should not be able to do this using music functions.
>>
>> Hmm. You may be absolutely right. Maybe all we need is to write such
>> functions and ship them with LilyPond!
>
> at =
> #(define-music-function (parser location t e m)
> (ly:duration? ly:event? ly:music?)
> #{ << #m { \skip $t <>$e } >> #})
>
> \new Voice {
> \at 1*1/3 \p
> \at 1*2/3 \<
> \at 1\!
> c'1
> }
Thanks! This shows how much i have to learn - didn't think it would be so easy.
However, i see two problems with this function, and i suppose they're
not easy to fix within current framework:
1) it is "prefix". I'm pretty sure that users will get confused as to
why sometimes you write \p after a note, and sometimes before it. (of
course if you understand what the function actually does, everything
becomes clear - but i think it's important to have syntax that looks
consistent and intuitive without reading function definitions (is the
word "transparency" appropriate here?))
2) similarly to using << >> construct manually, it breaks
full-measure-extra-space - compare spacing of the whole notes:
\paper { ragged-right = ##f }
at =
#(define-music-function (parser location t e m)
(ly:duration? ly:event? ly:music?)
#{ << #m { \skip $t <>$e } >> #})
\new Voice {
b8 b b b b b b b
c'1
b8 b b b b\< b b b
\at 2 \! c'1
}
Now, full-measure-extra-space isn't that important, but we may expect
that other similar context-specific things will appear and break
because of spacer rests used in \at.
> What we have under the umbrella of "syntax discussion"
> contains three things: lexical units, grammar and vocabulary, mostly
> implemented in lexer.ll, parser.yy, and *.ly respectively. In order to
> keep syntax predictable, we want to be able to solve most problems just
> by extending the vocabulary. That means that lexical units and grammar
> should be as generic, powerful, and simple as possible.
Agreed.
> Specialized
> lexical modes take power from the vocabulary. We want to avoid them as
> much as possible given our historic constraints.
ok.
>>>> My rough idea would look something like this
>>>> (this is just a musing, not a proposal for discussion yet):
>>>>
>>>> { b2 \<@0.5 a2 \!@0.5 } meaning { << b1 { s2 \< s2 \! } >> }
>>>
>>> Looks like a case of the cure being worse than the problem. Apart from
>>> not being related in any obvious manner.
>>
>> I'm not sure i understand what you had in mind.
>
> I wanted to express that I'm not sure I understand what you had in
> mind. I can't figure out how your proposed syntax is going to mean what
> you state it would. Durations are different, there is a different
> number of notes...
ooops! That's embarassing! I've mixed two different examples from my vault.
I intended to write this:
{ b2 \<@0.5 a2 \!@0.5 } meaning { << { b2 a2 } { s4 s2 \< s4 \! } >> }
(i don't insist on having decimal numbers. It's just that the idea
was not to specify a delay duration, but a percent of the "parent"
note duration, and decimal numbers look better for this)
cheers,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
