Paolo Prete <paolopr...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:56 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Paolo Prete <paolopr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > Given:
>>> >
>>> > floating-markup = #(define-scheme-function (parser location x y obj)
>>> > (number? number? scheme?)
>>> > #{
>>> > \markup \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0)
>>> #'(0
>>> > . 0){
>>> > \override #'(baseline-skip . 0)
>>> > \translate #(cons x y)
>>> > #obj
>>> > }
>>> > #})
>>>
>>> That makes no sense at all. Obviously #obj cannot be anything but a
>>> markup here but you declare it as scheme? which just asks for obscure
>>> runtime errors. Then there is no point in not using a markup command
>>> here in the first place.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I can invoke it with:
>>> >
>>> > \floating-markup 15 -60 "some string"
>>> >
>>> > But how can I pass to the same function the following expression: {
>>> > \circle
>>> > 5 } as #obj?
>>>
>>> { \circle 5 } is not a LilyPond expression. It is a fragment of markup.
>>> You can turn it into a LilyPond expression by writing
>>>
>>> \markup { \circle 5 }
>>>
>>> in which case you'll get out an actual markup. Outside of markup,
>>> \circle is not defined.
>>>
>>> > Something like (pseudo-syntax) :
>>> >
>>> > \floating-markup 15 -60 #{ \circle 5 #}
>>>
>>> #{ ... #} is a Scheme construct, not a LilyPond expression. It is used
>>> for using LilyPond syntax inside of a Scheme expression.
>>>
>>> If you want to use it (in Scheme!) for writing in markup syntax, again
>>> you need to enter markup mode by writing
>>>
>>> #{ \markup ... #}
>>>
>>> in a Scheme expression. If you are in LilyPond entry mode, you can just
>> write \markup ... instead.
>>
>
> I see but the problem remains.
That may be because you are not heeding any of my advice.
> I would like to found a way to pass a more structured object to that
> function, not only a string:
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> \version "2.24.1"
>
> floating-markup = #(define-scheme-function (parser location x y obj)
> (number? number? scheme?)
Still scheme? instead of markup?
Still a scheme function instead of a markup command.
> #{
> \markup \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0
> . 0){
> \override #'(baseline-skip . 0)
> \translate #(cons x y)
> #obj
> }
> #})
>
>
> % GOOD
> \floating-markup 15 -60 "some string"
>
> % ERROR
> \floating-markup 15 -60 #{ \markup { \circle 1 } #}
I made a number of points. Your "I see" only addressed a single one.
To wit, you are still putting a Scheme expression instead of a LilyPond
expression in a place only admitting LilyPond syntax.
The straightforward way of calling this as-is would be
\floating-markup 15 -60 \markup \circle #1
If you instead defined it as a markup command as suggested, you could
call it _inside_ of markup as, say,
\markup { ... \floating #15 #-60 \circle #1 ... }
which would be the preferable way.
--
David Kastrup
