Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-12-03 Thread stk
Hello, As regards the issue of context-free equivalence -- > > I can say > > > >foo = \markup { \bold "Zanzibar" } > >bar = \markup { "Stand on" \foo } > > > > but I can't say > > > >bar = \markup { "Stand on" \markup { \bold "Zanzibar" } } > > > > [so] > > > >\foo is not equiv

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-12-03 Thread Erik Sandberg
On Thursday 30 November 2006 21:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > > > . . . one problem is that this [giving the syntax of each keyword] would > > still just tell a small part of the full syntax. > > I think it would give a big part of the full syntax, even if not the whole > picture. It wou

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-12-01 Thread Nicolas Sceaux
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mats Bengtsson escreveu: > >> As already said, this is not available in the current manual and one >> problem is that >> this would still just tell a small part of the full syntax. Another > > This should be rather easy to add to the manual. I believe

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-30 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
Mats Bengtsson escreveu: >> OK, thank you, that's very clear. That fact, for any given keyword, >> would tell a user immediately whether (s)he could just write a macro or >> would be forced to define a function for some expression involving the >> keyword. >> >> Is the information >>(1) numbe

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-30 Thread stk
Hello, > . . . one problem is that this [giving the syntax of each keyword] would > still just tell a small part of the full syntax. I think it would give a big part of the full syntax, even if not the whole picture. It would enable a user to know (1) what type of "arguments" have to follow

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-30 Thread Mats Bengtsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, It may help your understanding to know that \tweak itself is implemented as a music function taking 3 arguments. The syntax of \tweak is \tweak symbol value music_expression OK, thank you, that's very clear. That fact, for any given keywor

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-30 Thread Mats Bengtsson
In my understanding, the difference between \override and \tweak is that with \override, you can only specify the "time" at which the setting should be active, i.e. if you have several notes or whatever that appear simultaneous within the same context, then you can not affect them individually, j

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-30 Thread stk
Hello, > It may help your understanding to know > that \tweak itself is implemented as a music function taking 3 arguments. > The syntax of \tweak is > \tweak symbol value music_expression OK, thank you, that's very clear. That fact, for any given keyword, would tell a user immediately whether

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-29 Thread Mats Bengtsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Does it work just to define this macro at the top level fraction = \tweak #'text #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text No, this doesn't work. OK, but I have a question. It is common to write such things as push = \once \over

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-29 Thread stk
Hello, > > Does it work just to define this macro at the top level > > > > fraction = \tweak #'text #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text > No, this doesn't work. OK, but I have a question. It is common to write such things as push = \once \override NoteColumn #'extra-X-extent = #'

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-29 Thread Trevor Bača
On 11/29/06, Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, this doesn't work. What does work is \version "2.10.0" fraction = #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?) #{ \tweak #'text #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text $music #}) This is exactly what I was

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-28 Thread Mats Bengtsson
Mats Bengtsson wrote: However, what is the reason to use \tweak at all? Why not simply do an ordinary \once \override: \version "2.10.0" fraction = \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text Sorry, this should of course be fraction = \once \override TupletNumber #'te

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-28 Thread Mats Bengtsson
No, this doesn't work. What does work is \version "2.10.0" fraction = #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?) #{ \tweak #'text #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text $music #}) \relative c'{ \fraction \times 2/3 { c'8 c'8 c'8 } } Howeve

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-28 Thread Mats Bengtsson
Werner LEMBERG wrote: Does it work just to define this macro at the top level fraction = \tweak #'text #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text [...] Are you sure that you want to overwrite LilyPond's `\fraction' function? ??? Are you thinking of the \fraction markup command? In

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-28 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> Does it work just to define this macro at the top level > > fraction = \tweak #'text #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text > > [...] Are you sure that you want to overwrite LilyPond's `\fraction' function? Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing

Re: Scheme question on strict substitution

2006-11-28 Thread stk
Hello, Does it work just to define this macro at the top level fraction = \tweak #'text #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text and then later in the music to write \fraction \times 2/3 { c'8 c'8 c'8 } Does LilyPond swallow that? -- Tom ---