On 2012/01/20 17:33:44, dak wrote:
mailto:n.putt...@gmail.com writes:
> Hi David, > > Should I wait for a new patch or can I test using the latest one
here?
> > I've tried it out briefly on a real music example, and have a
problem
> with identifiers: > > foo = \mark \default > > \relative c' { > \foo > c1 > }
You have the newest. The problem is the definition of ly:event? (for recognizing postevents). It is currently (in lily/music-scheme.cc) defined as the equivalent of (define (ly:event? m) (and (ly:music? m) (ly:is-music-of-type? m 'event) (not (ly:is-music-of-type? m 'rhythmic-event))))
That seemed to be more or less right. Apparently you found a "less right" case.
Suggestions?
define-music-display-methods has a rather crude post-event? definition but I am not all too sure whether it is early enough in the load-order. I think I will go the tiresome way of explicitly putting post-event into the types of each suitable music event. That puts the information to an obvious place, and it does not look like the current event types discriminate correctly. And either post-event? or ly:event? should eventually be eradicated. http://codereview.appspot.com/5440084/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel