2011/9/17 Reinhold Kainhofer <[email protected]>: > Am Saturday, 17. September 2011, 15:29:45 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: >> >> 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... > > Where's the problem? You can always override already used command names...
I'm also in favor of including more names by default. I know that it's easy to add \pf in your own source file, but it unnecessarily makes things more difficult for beginners. After all, Lily should be about "automated music engraving" ;) However, this is a topic for GLISS anyway. cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
