Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi all, > > Am 12.12.21 um 22:52 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: >> >> Maybe I'm going too far in my belief that "standard tasks best >> should not require # characters and scheme", but shouldn't we >> provide a LilyPond syntax interface for this? It's not so uncommon >> to want custom dynamic expressions after all: >> >> dynamic = >> #(define-music-function (text) (markup?) (make-dynamic-script text)) > > Thanks for your thoughts, everybody! Some questions/further thoughts: > > 1) > Right, it should be an event function. In fact, it's currently _the_ > example of a custom event function in the documentation: > https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/extending/event-functions.html > (which consequently should be replaced by something more interesting > and less standard). But the remark in the documentation that, if one > uses a music function instead of an event function, one would always > have to use it with -/_/^, seems to be obsolete now.
No, it isn't. Put \displayLilyMusic (or other music functions) before either. There is now a cleanup pass collecting loose pieces in sequential expressions but it does not come in time for assembling the arguments of music functions. > In fact, the warning applies to 2.19.83, but not to 2.20, which > surprises me (as I had thought that commits to 2.20 were a subset of > those to 2.19.83.) -- David Kastrup
