2017-09-10 14:43 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
> Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2017-09-03 18:30 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I think I know how to proceed,
>>
>> @Kieren
>> Attached the newest and heavily revised version.
>> Please read comments for usage.
>>
>> @David
>> For one example I use predefined markup-commands like
>> \markup with-red = \markup \with-color #red \etc
>>
>> I seem to remember there was some even simpler possibility.
>
> That is the simpler possibility. Or rather, the most straightforward
> one.
Ah, ok.
> The previous suggestion was to use
>
> with-red-markup = \markup \with-color #red \etc
>
> (?) but that would not have created a make-with-red-markup convenience
> function and/or made (markup #:with-red ...) do anything useful.
And I wanted to use make-with-red-markup ...
>> Btw,
>> \markup my-concat = \markup \concat { \etc "!" }
>> \markup \my-concat "foo"
>> fails, no surprise, just a dream ...
>
> More like a nightmare. Some markup expression with some \etc somewhere
> in the middle? How many arguments is it supposed to stand for? And
> which markup command is it supposed to complete? And when is the
> definition supposed to be complete when \etc is not necessarily the last
> part?
>
> And here you put \etc in a position where it could replace an arbitrary
> number of markups, but my-concat magically does not get a markup list as
> its argument but a single markup?
>
> This is solidly "do what I mean, not what I say" realm, and computers
> have nothing to go by but what you say.
Yeah, I do understand the programmers point of view, at least enough
to get the nightmare.
But from a user's perspective is "do what I mean, not what I say"
still sort of a dream. ;)
Thanks,
Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
