Hi Kieren,
1. Do you agree?
No, I think I don't. The reason is that (as Jean pointed out to me
while I was working on \after) the notes should be entered by the user
in the order in which they appear in print; basically that's why
internally \afterGrace does not use \after but repeats the internals
structure of \after.
2. What’s your advice on the best UI/UX?
I think it's not bad as it is. Maybe \afterHint and \hint (or
(\hintBefore or something like that) would be easier to memorise?
3. How would you code that?
Well, we don't need parser/location arguments anymore.
There's also the smal issue that we take a ly:music? argument even
though we actually only want one note. We don't have a good predicate
for this. But: Isn't it safe to assume that the hint note will always
be a 4 notehead? Then we might make the code more concise by accepting
only a ly:pitch?.
So maybe something like this?
\version "2.25.27"
\language "english"
hintNote =
#(define-music-function (hint-pitch) (ly:pitch?)
#{
\single \omit Stem
\tweak Parentheses.font-size -3
\tweak Parentheses.padding 0.1
\parenthesize $hint-pitch 4
#})
hint = \grace \hintNote \etc
afterHint =
#(define-music-function (main hint-pitch) (ly:music? ly:pitch?)
#{
\afterGrace #main \hintNote #hint-pitch
#})
{
\key fs \major
\afterHint as'1 bf'
\key bf \major
bf'
}
{
\key fs \major
as'1
\key bf \major
\hint as' bf'1
}
%%% SNIPPET ENDS
Lukas
