Kieren MacMillan <> writes:

> Hi David,
>>> Is there any technical reason not to make *every* markup function work
>>> like this?
>> There are markup commands and event functions and they are in different
>> name spaces.
> Sorry for pushing for more clarity/understanding, but: is it [in terms
> of behaviour] that the event-function version of the function simply
> provides a "wrapper" for the markup-function version (thus saving the
> \markup, but doing nothing else),

What?  You either define an event function or a markup command.  They
aren't related.  If you are feeling fancy, you can define a markup
command and use it in the definition of an event function of the same
name.  But that's entirely up to the user.

> or does either version have additional pros and/or cons (e.g.,
>  more/less expensive, more/less prone to problems, etc.).

One is the markup, the other is a text script post event.  Markups can
be used in a variety of circumstances (as text scripts, as lyrics, as
part of other markup, as tempo strings, as mark texts and so on).  Text
scripts can be used as text scripts.

>> We don't prescripe how people are going to use markups.
> That's probably a good thing! =)
> But since \cue is both clearer (more immediately obvious) and cleaner
> (less typing) than \markup \cue, I'm trying to determine if there’s
> any downside to modifying my entire library with
> define-markup-function --> define-event-function (besides the
> search-and-replace migration effort on legacy scores, obviously).

It depends on whether you want a markup or some post event that is
implemented using a text script.

David Kastrup

lilypond-user mailing list

Reply via email to