On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/09/12 21:12, David Kastrup wrote:
>> "the previous element" is the same kind of thing.
>>
>> c-.=\parenthesize=\tweak #'color #red
>>
>> Now is the parenthesized . red, or is the paren red?
>
> Apologies, my own (completely independently thought up) earlier email was
> posted before reading this part of the discussion.
No problem! <tongue-in-cheek> Great minds think alike! </tounge-in-cheek>
> Is it not possible to again use brackets for avoidance of ambiguity, e.g.
>
> c-.={\parenthesize=\tweak #'color #red}
>
> makes only the parenthesis red, while
>
> c-{.=\parenthesize}=\tweak #'color #red
>
> makes the dot and parenthesis red, and
>
> {c-.=\parenthesize}=\tweak #'color #red
>
> makes the note and the parenthesized dot red?
I'd say this interpretation makes some sense. However, i agree that
it's a mess; i haven't thought about this use-case.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> At any rate, I have my problems considering the proposal a
> simplification. It also glosses over the fact that we don't have just -
> but also ^ and _ as direction modifiers, and I don't see that the
> "attaches to the previous element" concept would never require a
> direction.
You mean that the direction would overwrite the dash/double dash and
make them indistinguishable? Like in
{ c^\<^\markup "poco" d e f\! }
?
I'd say that we could treat - and = independently from directions.
I.e. write the above in this way:
{ c -^\< =^\markup "poco" d e f\! }
cheers,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
