That sounds like the right way to go -- choose one format for the messages.
I don't have much experience with this, but I'm excellent at using trial and error, and happy to help with the testing. I live in Brisbane, Australia, and do a lot of typesetting for a conductor/composer who lives in Texas, USA. In the few short days I've been using annotate it has already made my communications about changes/corrections so much simpler and accurate. Craig On Sat Feb 07 2015 at 6:54:03 AM Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Craig, > > Am 06.02.2015 um 20:28 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: > > Hi Urs, > > I worked out one of the problems. > > > Thank you for testing. This at least shows me where the problem is - > unfortunately an area I'm quite unfamiliar with ... > > > > If there is only one lilyglyph in the message, surrounding it with the > "@"-s is fine. > This works: > message = "Is this @\lilyDynamics{p}@ necessary?" > > > If there are two lilyglyphs in the one annotate message the "@"-s need > to surround both. > This doesn't work: > message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{}@ go all the way to the > @\lilyDynamics{ff}@?" > > This does work: > message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{} go all the way to the > \lilyDynamics{ff}@?" > > > OK, the problem seems to be that the regular expression that matches "any > text between two "@" characters" doesn't correctly work when there are more > than two such characters in the string. I would have to sort out how that > regular expression can match these pairs independently. > > Your solution just circumvents the problem but is actually not acceptable > (means: it is not acceptable that such a workaround is necessary) because > that means that *anything* between the two LaTeX expressions will be also > parsed literally, which may be OK in cases but may also cause trouble in > other cases, e.g. > > message = "The @\crotchet is wrong (see #12), but the \quaver@ should > be fine." > > Here I'd want the # to be printed (referencing an issue in the tracker), > but as it is it would be printed literally instead of the escaped version > \#. > > But this makes me think if that hybrid approach of possibly mixed plain > text and LaTeX code is really a good idea after all. Maybe it would be > better to decide about a format for messages and simply treat the message > consequently. That would mean there should be a global option saying > "message body is entered as plaintext|latex|markdown|html" (as a project > wide preference) and/or there can be a local property in an annotation > saying > message-format = "latex" > > What do you think? > > > Urs > > > > I still can't get italic text to work. > @\textit{cresc.}@ > > Craig > > > > > > On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 10:34:48 AM Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Am 06.02.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: >> >> Thanks Urs, >> >> I had to try many different combinations, and don't ask me why, but this >> is what I eventually found worked: >> >> @\crescHairpin{} >> >> and >> >> \lilyDynamics{ff}@ >> >> Why one of them needs the "@" symbol at the start and the other at the >> end I don't know. >> >> I still can't get any variation of @\textit{dim.}@ to work. >> >> Craig >> >> >> Hm, well, that's definitely not what it should be like. >> I'll try to have a look ASAP. >> >> >> Urs >> >> >> >> >> On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 8:37:56 AM Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 05.02.2015 um 23:19 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm having some trouble getting the Lilyglyphs to display in Latex >>> after exporting the annotate inp file. >>> >>> Do you put the Lilyglyphs code into the annotate message section? >>> e.g. >>> message = "This \decrescHairpin\ is very long. Would a \textit{dim.} be >>> better?" >>> >>> or >>> >>> message = "Should this \crescHairpin\ go all the way to the \ff?" >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> >>> >>> You can put arbitrary LaTeX code - and that includes lilyglyphs - in a >>> message section, but you have to enclose everything in "@"-s. >>> Normally LaTeX special characters are escaped so that they _print_ as >>> desired, so >>> message = "Here you should use \crescHairpin" >>> would be translated to the following in the .inp file: >>> {Here you should use \textbackslash crescHairpin} >>> >>> I think your above examples should be written as: >>> >>> message = "This @\decrescHairpin@ is very long. Would a @\textit{dim.}@ >>> be better?" >>> message = "Should this @\crescHairpin@ go all the way to the >>> @\lilyDynamics{ff}@" >>> >>> HTH >>> Urs >>> >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lilypond-user mailing >>> [email protected]https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lilypond-user mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
