[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What is the point of \on-the-fly ?
|
From: |
Paul |
|
Subject: |
Re: What is the point of \on-the-fly ? |
|
Date: |
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:59:13 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 |
On 06/13/2017 11:16 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
(define-markup-command bla)
does not define bla, but rather bla-markup, make-bla-markup and bits and
pieces used for signatures and the markup macro.
Even then, creating music functions on the fly _and_ using them requires
use of $(define-music-function ...) since #(define-music-function ...)
does not call the generated music function (would be hard assigning a
music function if it got called right away...).
Ah ok, thanks for the explanation. (I need to brush up on my $ vs #.)
I actually just proposed an issue where you _can_ call markup functions
on the fly when defined properly.
Sounds good. This is the $ one.
But the process of assigning a markup
command with all that it entails cannot be done in the same manner.
Since we can generate markup commands "on the fly" with \markup
... \etc, assigning them in a manner corresponding to
define-markup-command might be nice.
I suggested
\markup bla = ...
for it without being all too clear about whether this implied \markup
mode, allowing for
\markup bla = \bold \large \etc
rather than
\markup bla = \markup \bold \large \etc
There were no real comments (and I am fuzzy on the details of the
ensuing non-discussion as far as I remember it) so this proposal petered
out.
Hmm, I must have missed this, but sounds promising.
-Paul