Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes:
>>> Of course I can do
>>>
>>> circlefunc = \markup\circle\etc
>>> \markup \test \circlefunc "whatever"
>> You can? Have you tried? \circlefunc here is quite equivalent to
>> \circle .
>
> Hm, I think I do not understand. With
>
> test =
> #(define-scheme-function (enclosure content)
> (markup-function? markup?)
> (list enclosure #{ \markup \box #content #}))
>
> I can do and compile
>
> \test \markup \circle \etc "whatever"
>
> as well as
>
> circlefunc = \markup\circle\etc
> \markup \test \circlefunc "whatever"
>
> but
>
> \markup \test \circle "whatever"
>
> fails with
>
> /tmp/frescobaldi-7l5ntq0c/tmp1iduvtxw/document.ly:8:15: Fehler: syntax
> error, unexpected MARKUP_FUNCTION, expecting \header
>
> \markup \test
>
> \circle "whatever"
>
> /tmp/frescobaldi-7l5ntq0c/tmp1iduvtxw/document.ly:8:33: Fehler:
> Haupt-Eingabe nicht beendet
>
> \markup \test \circle "whatever"
>
> schwerer Fehler: gescheiterte Dateien:
> "/tmp/frescobaldi-7l5ntq0c/tmp1iduvtxw/document.ly"
>
> So, I can't believe that \circlefunc and \circle should be actually
> equivalent.
Ah right, there is a difference. They would be equivalent when writing
\markup circlefunc = \markup \circle \etc
The actually embedded markup function is the same, but it is packaged
differently. You can get at the markup function part of the package by
using
test =
#(define-scheme-function (enclosure content)
(markup-function? markup?)
(list enclosure #{ \markup \box #content #}))
\markup \test \circle-markup "whatever"
Markups and their commands are an abomination.
--
David Kastrup
