Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes: > Hi David, > >>> Is there any technical reason not to make *every* markup function work >>> like this? >> >> There are markup commands and event functions and they are in different >> name spaces. > > Sorry for pushing for more clarity/understanding, but: is it [in terms > of behaviour] that the event-function version of the function simply > provides a "wrapper" for the markup-function version (thus saving the > \markup, but doing nothing else),
What? You either define an event function or a markup command. They aren't related. If you are feeling fancy, you can define a markup command and use it in the definition of an event function of the same name. But that's entirely up to the user. > or does either version have additional pros and/or cons (e.g., > more/less expensive, more/less prone to problems, etc.). One is the markup, the other is a text script post event. Markups can be used in a variety of circumstances (as text scripts, as lyrics, as part of other markup, as tempo strings, as mark texts and so on). Text scripts can be used as text scripts. >> We don't prescripe how people are going to use markups. > > That's probably a good thing! =) > > But since \cue is both clearer (more immediately obvious) and cleaner > (less typing) than \markup \cue, I'm trying to determine if there’s > any downside to modifying my entire library with > define-markup-function --> define-event-function (besides the > search-and-replace migration effort on legacy scores, obviously). It depends on whether you want a markup or some post event that is implemented using a text script. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
