Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs, I went through this a couple of months ago, and it *seems* possible to use markups (and paths) as legitimately new articulations (maybe -- and happily -- in contradiction to the assumption in your original post, if I'm reading correctly). Here's the pattern as a MWE: %%% BEGIN NOVEL ARTI

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Aaron, althought this has long left the original thread's purpose I find this extremely interesting. Would you be interested in adding some content to https://scheme-book.ursliska.de, maybe somewhere below https://scheme-book.ursliska.de/scheme/lists/? There is always need for explanations

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

On 2018-10-13 12:29 am, Aaron Hill wrote: According to the docs [1], assoc-set! (and family) may modify the original alist. So whether a copy is made or not depends on an implementation detail. Near as I can tell, the original alist is modified in-place when the key is found within. But when t

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

On 2018-10-13 12:01 am, Urs Liska wrote: Hi Harm, Am 13.10.2018 um 01:18 schrieb Thomas Morley: Hi Urs, Am Sa., 13. Okt. 2018 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : %% Not sure if needed, though, better be paranoid and work on a copy of %% default-script-alist to avoid possible bleed-over. #(d

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Harm, Am 13.10.2018 um 01:18 schrieb Thomas Morley: Hi Urs, Am Sa., 13. Okt. 2018 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : %% Not sure if needed, though, better be paranoid and work on a copy of %% default-script-alist to avoid possible bleed-over. #(define my-script-alist default-script-alist)

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs, Am Sa., 13. Okt. 2018 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : > > %% Not sure if needed, though, better be paranoid and work on a copy of > > %% default-script-alist to avoid possible bleed-over. > > #(define my-script-alist default-script-alist) > > Except that this doesn't *create* a copy but

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Harm, sorry, I forgot to reply to that until now. Am 12.10.2018 um 14:35 schrieb Thomas Morley: Hi Urs, sorry for the late reply. Right now I've a cold (not working in my regular job), so I've more time to look into lilypond-tasks. While waiting for a guile-complie to finish... Am So., 30

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs, sorry for the late reply. Right now I've a cold (not working in my regular job), so I've more time to look into lilypond-tasks. While waiting for a guile-complie to finish... Am So., 30. Sep. 2018 um 12:01 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : > Creating a new articulation (or overwriting the definiti

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Am 30.09.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: Hi Urs,     upbow =     #(define-music-function ()()        #{          \tweak self-alignment-X #CENTER          -\markup "hin."        #}) because     c4 \upbow will fail with the complaint about an unexpected post-event (I have to write

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs,     upbow =     #(define-music-function ()()        #{          \tweak self-alignment-X #CENTER          -\markup "hin."        #}) because     c4 \upbow will fail with the complaint about an unexpected post-event (I have to write -\upbow) If you use define-event-function instead

Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi, I need to define new items to attach to notes that center-align to the note heads. These should be either regular texts or drawn paths. I know a few approaches but haven't found a working solution for me, so I'd be happy to get some hints (or solutions). As I want *some* of the objects t