Well, I thought I was clear enough in my message, but I tend to
overcomplicate things I guess. The issue was, I couldn't really post more
code, because it was my font issue, so it couldn't be replicated on any
LilyPond installation (because it works as intended when using default
font).
Your magical scheme code fixed the issue though, so thank you (you
understood my intentions perfectly)! (I wish I knew more about this, there
doesn't seem to be much information about Scheme in LilyPond).
As an additional request, could you recommend some starting points for
Scheme learning? I want to come up with such solutions myself.. I feel that
already powerful LilyPond would become the ultimate engraving machine when
one masters the Scheme.
In any case, thanks again, I'll save this code for all of my future
projects.
Pozdrawiam,
Krzysztof Gutowski
2017-03-03 23:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com>:
> 2017-03-03 3:43 GMT+01:00 kmg <krzysztof.kolor...@gmail.com>:
> > I'm using custom font of which I have only regular italic variant; while
> it
> > makes expression text look good, it also makes dynamics made in \markup
> > appear like they were typed in this font instead with my music font.
> >
> >
> > MWE (somewhat):
> >
> > \version "2.19.55"
> > ...
> > c\sfz-\markup { \italic "cresc." } %works
> > c-\markup { \dynamic "sfz" \italic "cresc." } %sfz is displayed in
> > TextScript font instead of music font
> > ...
> >
> > How it looks like; left = \dynamic in \markup, right = note\dynamic -
> > http://i.imgur.com/N0QodeO.png
> >
> > Is there a way to set it so \dynamics will display actual glyph from my
> > music font? If you're wondering about the font, I bought it, so I'm kinda
> > limited to only regular italic variant; besides - if it's rendering the
> > TextScript font anyway, it would look bad when paired with actual music
> font
> > dynamic glyph... which is weird, because it ~should~ render music font
> > always, right? When using default TextScript font, it works perfectly,
> so I
> > assume there's a problem having only one variant of the this font
> (regular
> > italics).
> >
> > As a workaround I'm using #(make-dynamic-script) when using combined
> > dynamics, or \musicglyph; it's troublesome to adjust following text every
> > time and messing with overrides though. Also, \musicglyph is nice for
> single
> > letter + text, but it fails when doing combined dynamics. Found out that
> > using \markup { \dynamic p \override #'(font-name . "font") \italic
> "text" }
> > works too, but it would've been great if it worked out of the box. Thanks
> > for your suggestions guys.
> >
> > Pozdrawiam,
> > Krzysztof Gutowski
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> I've no good idea what works for you under which circumstances and
> what you really want.
> This may be a language issue. As a non-native speaker myself I tend to
> put in my posts compilable, (and where needed) commented code,
> demonstrating the problem.
> In other words, I'd prefer less descripting text but more code ;)
>
> That said, if I guess your intends correctly the following may help:
>
> #(define-markup-command (dynamic layout props arg)
> (markup?)
> (interpret-markup
> layout
> (prepend-alist-chain 'font-name #f
> (prepend-alist-chain 'font-encoding 'fetaText props)) arg))
>
> {
> \override TextScript.font-name = "Purisa"
> c\sfz-\markup { \italic "cresc." }
> c-\markup { \dynamic "sfz" \italic "cresc." }
> }
>
> Cheers,
> Harm
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
