Am 26.07.2011 12:14, schrieb Dmytro O. Redchuk:
On Tue 26 Jul 2011, 11:39 Urs Liska wrote:
Am 26.07.2011 11:28, schrieb Dmytro O. Redchuk:
So (if so), you need to define markup function.
#(define-markup-command (instr layout props what) (markup?)
(interpret-markup layout props
(markup #:bold #:italic #:huge what)))
(not tested thougth).
Well this works. This is a solution I had also found in the docs.
So it seems it is not possible to _use_ functions the way I had wanted?
I have always either to use a markup function (and write "\markup")
or to first write the function name and provide the note as an argument.
Is that correct?
Actually I don't know why _markup function_ behaves like this.
Docs*) says:
%----------------------------8<----------------------------------
The markup macro builds markup expressions in Scheme while providing a
LilyPond-like syntax. For example,
(markup #:column (#:line (#:bold #:italic "hello" #:raise 0.4 "world")
#:larger #:line ("foo" "bar" "baz")))
is equivalent to:
\markup \column { \line { \bold \italic "hello" \raise #0.4 "world" }
\larger \line { foo bar baz } }
%----------------------------8<----------------------------------
But is that really equivalent? Why markup function should (shouldn't it?) be
preceeded with \markup ?
I don't know actually. Sorry.
Well, that's actually a snippet that I also had problems with.
I think it depends on the perspective.
It is equivalent in the sense that writing the above Scheme snippet
within a function will give the same result as writing the lilypond
snippet within a music expression.
But I think actually the Scheme expression returns a markup object
containing everything from the first #.
So in order to use it you can replace everything after the "\markup" by
the result of the function.
So if it is at all possible one would have to create a function that
returns the "\markup" command as well as the markup object created in
the above example.
Of course I don't have a clue as to how to achieve this. But my vaguely
remembered programming experience leads me to believe that it should be
possible.
Any ideas anyone?
Or should I just drop this and use
c4 \markup \inst "Vl."
?
Best
Urs
_____________________
*
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/extending/markup-construction-in-scheme
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
