"Monk Panteleimon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> \markup \pad-markup #3 \large{ \with-color #(x11-color 'firebrick) \italic {
> \hspace #9 Deacon:} \override #'(line-width . 60) \justify{ What the deacon
> says. } }
>
> I want to condense this into a command so that {what the deacon says}
> constitutes the argument-in-question, whereas the rest of the formatting and
> the {deacon} argument remain the same. \markup \deacon{what the deacon says}
> would be fine.
> Just plain \deacon{what the deacon says} would be even better. In fact it
> would be splendid, if only I could figure out where and what and how
> everything goes into the #(define ... scheme. Then I could alter that
> definition for use with {what everyone else who isn't singing says}.
> \rubric{some rubrics} etc. etc.
The first step is to convert your literal \markup expression to
scheme. Then substitue the part that should change with a variable name,
finally wrap this expression inside a define-markup-command expression.
The argument to your \deacon command, a markup, will be the justified
part.
#(define-markup-command (deacon layout props what-is-said)
(markup?)
(interpret-markup layout props
(markup #:pad-markup 3
#:large #:line (#:hspace 9
#:with-color (x11-color 'firebrick) #:italic
"Deacon:"
#:override '(line-width . 60) what-is-said))))
\markup \deacon \justify {
What the deacon says.
}
nicolas
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
