Re: Define absolute-dynamics as a customizable event-function (issue 20660044)

[v . villenave]

Slight update; thanks for your patience (I’ve never been good at this
but now I’m also quite a bit rusty).



https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly
File ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly#newcode37
ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly:37: (map (lambda (str)
On 2013/11/01 11:24:36, dak wrote:
> for-each if you don't want to return a value.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly#newcode39
ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly:39: (ly:format "\"~a\" = \\dynamic \"~a\""
str str)))
On 2013/11/01 11:24:36, dak wrote:
> Why not use ly:parser-define! here?

Indeed! I had been dabbling with
(let ((sym (string->symbol (primitive-eval str)))
                 (def #{ \dynamic $str #}))
    `(define-public ,sym ,def)))
     ls))
but this is the way do go. Thanks!

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly#newcode66
ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly:66: ; we can.
On 2013/11/01 11:24:36, dak wrote:
> You could just dig through the markup and see whether you find a
\dynamic-string
> inside.  That's not likely helpful for instructions like "definitely
not ff",
> but seems better than nothing.

In which case I’d forget about adding a markup command, and do
everything in here. Can’t it make the code unnecessarily heavy? (Side
question: if we go this way, is it really worth keeping all this as a
.ly file rather than putting it in scm/ ?)

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly#newcode79
ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly:79: (display "tataaaa :"))
On 2013/11/01 11:24:36, dak wrote:
> I don't think that kind of output is usual for LilyPond.

OMG. Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly#newcode89
ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly:89: (_ "Dynamic \"~a\" does not have an
acceptable volume: ~a") arg vol)))
On 2013/11/01 11:24:36, dak wrote:
> Excessive output, isn't it?

I added these messages because of Carl’s suggestion a couple of years
ago:
https://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/#msg4

Not really sure if we want to hold the user’s hand that much (removing
it altogether would make the code considerably lighter).

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode2716
scm/define-markup-commands.scm:2716: The dynamic font is only used in
words that contain no other
On 2013/11/01 11:24:36, dak wrote:
> This is just too ugly and unreliable as an interface.

Can you elaborate? (Not the ugly part, that I get; but how you would do
it if anything?)

https://codereview.appspot.com/20660044/