Re: Any objections to branching off a stable branch for 2.20?

[Paul]

On 07/17/2017 02:14 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

> Currently there is a bit of a lull (not entirely graceful due to me not
> keeping up with things all the best), so the time seems convenient.

No objections here.  What's the latest thinking/status for issue 3884?  
Anything I can / should do?

Patch: Add on-page-greater-than, -less-than (on-the-fly)
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3884/

> There are a few "critical" bugs outstanding, the "Changes" document
> should be reordered to be systematic rather than in reverse time order,
> and I'd want to add a bit of syntactic Scheme and LilyPond sugar of the
>
> \markup blabla = \markup \with-color #red \etc

I like the goal of defining named markup functions via \etc  but I find 
this syntax a bit odd, with the `=` to the right of `\markup` .  I can't 
think of other cases in LilyPond like this:

\onething another =

where a '\' is to the left of an `=`.  It's usually `a = b` or `\a b` 
but not `\a = b` or `\a b = c`.

Are there other options that wouldn't introduce this new pattern? Would 
something like this work?

\define-markup blabla \markup \with-color #red \etc

> variety in order to define named markup functions via \etc .  Basically,
> this would split define-markup-command into a definition part called by
>
> \markup blabla = ...
>
> and a function part, say
> (markup-lambda (layout props arg) (markup?)
>     #:properties ....)
>
> that can be generated by a \markup ... \etc expression or other means.
>
> Basically, that's mainly for avoiding the current "ugh" of
>
> blabla-markup = \markup ... \etc

I agree this is "ugh".

-Paul