2017-06-11 15:08 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > > \on-the-fly gets as first argument a function that it calls on the > second argument as if the first argument was actually a markup command. > > Why not make the first argument actually a markup command? > > It would appear that we are mostly talking about a closed set here > anyway. So why > > \markup \on-the-fly #(on-page 3) "blabla" > > instead of > > \markup \on-page #3 "blabla" > > ? Where is the point in this particular obfuscation? > > -- > David Kastrup
on-the-fly is one (of two) markup-(list-)commands in define-markup-commands.scm which takes a procedure as argument (the other is map-markup-commands). This procedure needs to have three arguments: layout, props and the one which is actually worked on. I desperately tried to find such a procedure, being sufficiently different from markup-(list-)-commands. To no avail. So I'd vote for dropping on-the-fly entirely. (Unless somebody know a good use-case) Ofcourse several procedures in titling-init.ly would need to become markup-commands. map-markup-commands from define-markup-commands.scm needs to be changed as well. And regtests and docs... Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
