Re: Update on the coding par-tay

[David Kastrup]

"address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:

> Hey all,
>
> Just a note to letchya'll know that there'll be 7(ish) people
> attending Extreme Makeover: Markup Edition in Paris over the weekend
> of the 15th.  The idea is to make the behavior of markups more robust
> (likely by treating them like objects (not in the pejorative sense of
> the term "treating like objects"...the CS sense) instead of a set of
> instructions to be fed to stencils).  This will likely touch
> everything, from the parser/lexer to perhaps "Engravers" for markups
> (i.e. Line_markup_engraver) to refashioning code in Pango to whatever.
>
> We'll have Skype open for the duration of coding hours for those who
> want to participate à distance, but if any of you would like to chime
> in on markups before this weekend, please do!

I am actually just working on the syntax to make markups (more
precisely: any scalar) acceptable as the last argument of type Scheme
(namely non-specific) to music functions and their ilk.

The principal motivation is being able to convert \mark with its current
semantics into a music function as well, and of course be able to
harvest this increased kind of flexibility of the final argument for
user-defined functions.

While I don't expect much overlap in our endeavors (I don't actually
look inside markups for mine), it is likely that you'll get merge
conflicts on any patches based on material of mine.

I've also considered adding define-markup-function (in analogy to the
existing define-*-function commands).  It would be orthogonal to the
existing define-markup-command in that the latter works only _inside_ of
markups, while the former works _outside_ of markups.

I've not yet seen an existing application clamoring for this, so I have
not yet bothered.  It would be reasonably simple to do, however.

-- 
David Kastrup