Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > 2015-12-10 11:58 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Not sure why >>> foo-markup = \markup \bold \with-color #cyan \markletter \etc >>> \markup \foo #1 >>> does not work, as opposed to >>> bold-red-markup = \markup \bold \with-color #red \etc >>> \markup \bold-red "text" >> >> Anyway, should this rather work using the syntax >> >> \markup bold-red = \bold \with-color #red \etc >> >> ? this would have the advantage of hiding the way \markup introduces >> its own name space, and one could use the full define-markup-command >> resulting in (markup #:bold-red ...) and make-bold-red-markup working as >> well. > > Nice advantages. > >> But it seems weird to use this for \etc-style functions only. > > And right now > \markup bold-red > prints the string "bold-red".
And \markup bold-red = at top level is a syntax error now. No conflict. I tested that already in the grammar but without tying any useful action to the grammar rule. > Having > \markup bold-red = <ẃhat-ever> > ,i.e. a definition might lead to confusions. The compiler isn't confused. The question is more about the user. > Is it possible to create a sort-of-markup-macro to be used like: > > \sort-of-markup-macro sort-of-markup-macro-name = <whatever> > > instead? > (Just brain-storming) Uh, that went over my head. Care to elaborate? I cannot really fit the wildcard pieces here. >> And the whole markup-macro machinery is crazy anyway. > > I trust your expertise. Well, markups in general... -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
