2015-12-11 11:50 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> 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.
Yep, that was exactly my concern. >> 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. Well, still only brain-storming ... (1) A step in my past I remember as a starter with LilyPond I was a little confused that we had a plethora of things like: nameI = <somethingI> nameII = <somethingII> nameIII = <somethingIII> Where <somethingWhatever> was a quite simple expression or a music-function or ... But markup-commands were different. There was some define-thing then as argument the name and others. (nowadays I could probably describe this a little better, but I'm trying to recall my starter-thoughts). And it lasted some time to sort it all. (2) Your proposal: \markup bold-red = \bold \with-color #red \etc If I'm not mistaken then this would define a valid markup-command with the name 'bold-red. In general it would allow to newly define markup-commands using preexisting ones in an easy and userfriendly way. Though, I thought about some sort of macro, doing the job like: %% the macro: \simple-define-markup-command %% the args: % name: bold-red % body: \bold \with-color #red \etc I think it would prevent some confusions. Though it omitts the "="-sign, no idea whether it's possible or desirable. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
