I’ve done some work to clean up my code and also modified the interface to be
fairly intuitive and non-intrusive. Hopefully I’ll have some time this week to
integrate this into my project, but if anyone sees anything that could be
improved, I’d love to hear about it.
✝✝
On Nov 2, 2021, at 11:26 PM, Aaron Hill wrote:
>
> Okay, would text replacement be viable as opposed to writing a bunch of
> individual functions?
That does sound nice. There would need to be some helper functions to handle
the formatting issue that Jean pointed out, but I can get that mostly
Le 03/11/2021 à 04:26, Aaron Hill a écrit :
Okay, would text replacement be viable as opposed to writing a bunch
of individual functions?
feminine =
#'(("man/woman" . "woman")
("his/her" . "her")
("he/she" . "she"))
\markup \replace \feminine {
The man/woman, tightly clutching
On 2021-11-02 2:56 pm, R. Padraic Springuel wrote:
On Nov 2, 2021, at 1:00 PM, Aaron Hill
wrote:
Not sure if this was already suggested, but could you use something
like this to concatenate arbitrary markup?
I think that what you’re suggesting is in the spirit of what David was
suggesting,
On Nov 2, 2021, at 1:00 PM, Aaron Hill wrote:
>
> Not sure if this was already suggested, but could you use something like this
> to concatenate arbitrary markup?
I think that what you’re suggesting is in the spirit of what David was
suggesting, but I’m trying to reduce the input overhead at t
Le 02/11/2021 à 16:23, R. Padraic Springuel a écrit :
On Oct 31, 2021, at 6:02 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
If the ugliness of juxtaposition is ok, you may use things like
\,\man
for concatenating stuff, too.
What about event functions? Can a command which does the concatenation be
written as
On 2021-11-02 8:23 am, R. Padraic Springuel wrote:
On Oct 31, 2021, at 6:02 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
If the ugliness of juxtaposition is ok, you may use things like
\,\man
for concatenating stuff, too.
Not sure if this was already suggested, but could you use something like
this to concate
> On Oct 31, 2021, at 6:02 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> If the ugliness of juxtaposition is ok, you may use things like
>
> \,\man
>
> for concatenating stuff, too.
What about event functions? Can a command which does the concatenation be
written as an event function so that the juxtaposit
"R. Padraic Springuel" writes:
>> On Oct 18, 2021, at 5:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> I'd lean towards defining \man like in the question and a function \maN
>> that takes the following markup and concatenates it. That's viciously
>> unclever but sometimes not having to worry whether the c
> On Oct 18, 2021, at 5:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> I'd lean towards defining \man like in the question and a function \maN
> that takes the following markup and concatenates it. That's viciously
> unclever but sometimes not having to worry whether the computer gets
> everything right is its
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> Le 18/10/2021 à 21:22, R. Padraic Springuel a écrit :
>> I’m using some functions to allow me to select words in the lyrics
>> of some hymns in a systematic way so that the same hymn can be used
>> referring to one or more persons (and in some cases, either a man or
>> a
Le 18/10/2021 à 21:22, R. Padraic Springuel a écrit :
I’m using some functions to allow me to select words in the lyrics of some
hymns in a systematic way so that the same hymn can be used referring to one or
more persons (and in some cases, either a man or a woman). These functions
work just
I’m using some functions to allow me to select words in the lyrics of some
hymns in a systematic way so that the same hymn can be used referring to one or
more persons (and in some cases, either a man or a woman). These functions
work just fine when they appear in the lyrics by themselves, but
Lukas-Fabian Moser 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 (en
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
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> test =
>> #(define-scheme-function (enclosure content)
>>(markup-function? markup?)
>>(list enclosure #{ \markup \box #content #}))
>>
>> \markup \test \markup \circle \with-color #red \etc "whatever"
>
> Amazing, wonderfully elegant.
>
> Is the
Hi David,
test =
#(define-scheme-function (enclosure content)
(markup-function? markup?)
(list enclosure #{ \markup \box #content #}))
\markup \test \markup \circle \with-color #red \etc "whatever"
Amazing, wonderfully elegant.
Is there a way to avoid the second "\markup" and "\etc" in
Urs Liska writes:
> In the following markup command definition
>
> #(define-markup-command (test layout props enclosure content)
> (scheme? markup?)
>(interpret-markup layout props (markup #:circle content)))
>
> I would like to make the #:circle parametric, i.e. I want to pass
> something
Hi Lukas,
Am Samstag, den 04.07.2020, 10:22 +0200 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser:
> Hi Urs,
>
> > I have tried various things, but I don't seem to understand how
> > that
> > primitive-eval actually works here. Your solution does only work
> > when
> > the input is a simple markup (string), not when
Hi Urs,
I have tried various things, but I don't seem to understand how that
primitive-eval actually works here. Your solution does only work when
the input is a simple markup (string), not when it is wrapped in other
markup commands.
It seems to work quite robustly if you draw the given conte
Am Samstag, den 04.07.2020, 05:28 +0200 schrieb Urs Liska:
>
> Am 3. Juli 2020 23:33:42 MESZ schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser
> :
> > > #(define (get-scheme-markup-function func)
> > >(string->symbol
> > > (string-append "make-"
> > >(symbol->string func)
> > >
Am 3. Juli 2020 23:33:42 MESZ schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser :
>
>> #(define (get-scheme-markup-function func)
>> (string->symbol
>> (string-append "make-"
>> (symbol->string func)
>> "-markup")))
>
>... which should be replaced by
>
>#(define (get-scheme
#(define (get-scheme-markup-function func)
(string->symbol
(string-append "make-"
(symbol->string func)
"-markup")))
... which should be replaced by
#(define (get-scheme-markup-function func)
(symbol-append 'make- func '-markup))
Sorry, I had
(interpret-markup layout props
(markup
((assq-ref funcs func) content)
\markup \dyna #'circle "C:"
\markup \dyna #'box "C:"
You don't even need to hardcode the make-xxx-markup functions:
\version "2.20"
#(define (get-scheme-marku
On 2020-07-03 1:07 pm, Urs Liska wrote:
But I'd rather do something like
(markup (assq-ref enclosures enclosure) "CC")
markup is a macro, and macros appear to have unique rules of evaluation.
The following approach defers the macro expansion:
\version "2.20.0"
#(define-markup-command
Am Freitag, 03. Juli 2020 22:07 CEST, Urs Liska schrieb:
> > Syntacilally? That would be a scheme keyword.
>
> So that would be difficult to inject from a variable/argument, isn't
> it?
No, why? You can of course store a keyword in a variable and/or pass it as an
argument.
> I can of course
Hi Robin,
Am Freitag, den 03.07.2020, 22:11 +0200 schrieb Robin Bannister:
> Urs Liska wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I don't really have an idea what "#:circle" actually
> > *is*, so I have no clue about getting where I need to.
>
> I think it's a sort of macro thingy, trying to be easy to be used.
Urs Liska wrote:
Unfortunately I don't really have an idea what "#:circle" actually
*is*, so I have no clue about getting where I need to.
I think it's a sort of macro thingy, trying to be easy to be used.
Look at 'Known issues and warnings' at the bottom of
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.20/D
Am Freitag, den 03.07.2020, 21:58 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mattes:
>
> Am Freitag, 03. Juli 2020 21:52 CEST, Urs Liska <
> li...@openlilylib.org> schrieb:
>
> > Unfortunately I don't really have an idea what "#:circle" actually
> > *is*, so I have no clue about getting where I need to.
>
> Syntacil
Am Freitag, 03. Juli 2020 21:52 CEST, Urs Liska schrieb:
> Unfortunately I don't really have an idea what "#:circle" actually
> *is*, so I have no clue about getting where I need to.
Syntacilally? That would be a scheme keyword.
Cheers, RalfD
> BestUrs
>
>
--
Ralf Mattes
Hochschule für M
In the following markup command definition
#(define-markup-command (test layout props enclosure content)
(scheme? markup?)
(interpret-markup layout props (markup #:circle content)))
I would like to make the #:circle parametric, i.e. I want to pass
something into the function (e.g. as the 'en
this works:
#(define-markup-command (instruct layout props text) (markup?)
(interpret-markup layout props
#{
\markup \italic \magnify #0.7 #text
#}))
mkTenor = \markup { \instruct "tenor"}
\relative c' {
d1-\mkTenor
}
=Marc
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Rob Torop w
Rob Torop writes:
> I have a bunch of repeated things like this
>
>d f \mark \markup \italic \magnify #0.7 "(tenor & trp.)" r16
>
> where I put a little instruction over the melody
>
> I'd like to have a little function to call instead of \mark \markup \italic
> \magnify #0.7 "blah",
I have a bunch of repeated things like this
d f \mark \markup \italic \magnify #0.7 "(tenor & trp.)" r16
where I put a little instruction over the melody
I'd like to have a little function to call instead of \mark \markup \italic
\magnify #0.7 "blah", with the "blah" as a parameter.
quot;
>
> myFunction =
> #(define-scheme-function (parser location text) (markup?)
>#{
> \markup \italic \with-color #(x11-color "blue") #text
>#})
>
> pizz = \myFunction "pizz"
>
> {
> c'1
> c'-\myFunction "foo
nction "pizz"
{
c'1
c'-\myFunction "foo"
c'-\pizz
}
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Feeling-stupid-about-markup-functions-tp165849p165852.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
Hi,
I've been feeling stupid about this but now I finally have to ask for it ...
I can define a markup function \playing so that
\version "2.19.11"
#(define-markup-command (playing layout props text) (markup?)
"Print an technical performance indication (like sordini or instrument
change."
Hello,
On 26 April 2012 21:11, Urs Liska wrote:
> Hello Jan-Peter,
>
> thank you for this information.
> This is exactly what I needed!
>
> Can I find this in the docs? To get a better understanding ...
It's mentioned here at least
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/changes/index.html
Hello Jan-Peter,
thank you for this information.
This is exactly what I needed!
Can I find this in the docs? To get a better understanding ...
Best
Urs
Am 25.04.2012 10:37, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
Hello Urs,
if you are using the current devel version, you can wrap any markup
with #{ #}
--
Hello Urs,
if you are using the current devel version, you can wrap any markup with
#{ #}
--snip--
\version "2.15.37"
#(define-markup-command (nfont layout props arg)(markup?)
(interpret-markup layout props #{
\markup { \override #'(font-name . "DejaVu Sans") $arg }
#}))
\markup {
\
Hello community,
I didn't find this in the manual: How can I translate \markup {
\override #'(font-name . "XY") Test } in a markup function?
I only found how to translate e.g. \markup \italic Test etc. to #:italic.
Best
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing
Hello,
Using : LilyPond 2.11.4, Mac OS X 10.4.8
I think I have found a bug. When using changed fonts with the function
make-pango-font-tree, the functions \italic and \bold don't work anymore.
What do you think?
Frédéric
The input code :
\version "2.11.4"
\paper{
#(define fonts (make-pan
42 matches
Mail list logo
