Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> writes:
> On 2019-08-05 2:30 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes:
>>> By the way, I happened to see that section 1.3.4 of the Extending
>>> Manual sets off on the fact that it’s not possible to attach
>>> articulations to variables (“We know that `{ \music -. -> }' will not
>>> work in LilyPond”). So when that changes in future versions, this will
>>> need to be rewritten.
>>
>> It only works in music sequences now, not in general. You'll still not
>> be able to state something like
>>
>> var = \music -. ->
>>
>> if I remember correctly.
>
> What are the semantics of adding articulations to an instance of a
> music variable? Specifically, to which events in the variable are the
> articulations applied? Or would it be an error for the music variable
> to contain more than one note/chord to avoid ambiguity? Does this new
> syntax support other post-events (e.g. \tweaks and scripts) or just
> articulations?
>
> My apologies for the questions, but I cannot recall seeing any
> discussion of this feature in the main list. Should I be subscribing
> to the developer list?
It was slated as a 2.21 feature but I think I'll pull it back into
2.20. Basically it allows music lists like { ... ... ... } to contain
unattached post-events and will sweep them up when packaging the list
and attach them. That means something like
{ ... \displayLilyMusic \somemusic -3 }
will just display the content of \somemusic and package both \somemusic
and -3 separately into the list where they will get combined when the
list is turned into a sequential music expression in the parser.
So they are not really a syntactic entity but just combined in a "do
what I mean, better late than never" cleanup phase.
I think there was some discussion in the developer list.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
