>> I added the variable definition pf = #(make-dynamic-script "pf") to
>> my ly source, but is there any reason why this should not be added
>> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly? That already contains fp as a dynamic
>> marking, why not pf?
>
> I don't see why it couldn't contain more permutations of 'p', 'f'
> and even 'z' (I seem to remember that I had to manually create a
> dynamic for a few pieces that had things like szfp or sfffp (or
> similar - I cannot remember).
IMHO, this unnecessarily pollutes the macro namespace. Just imagine
that someone wants to define a macro which prints `Pianoforte' in some
way, and she decides to call it \pf just to discover that this name is
already taken...
Since it's just one line to define a new, arbitrary dynamic symbol
(which you essentially can copy and paste), I don't see a need for
such an action.
Werner
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
