Re: Basic function question

[Urs Liska]

Am 26.07.2011 12:14, schrieb Dmytro O. Redchuk:
> On Tue 26 Jul 2011, 11:39 Urs Liska wrote:
> > Am 26.07.2011 11:28, schrieb Dmytro O. Redchuk:
> > > So (if so), you need to define markup function.
> > >
> > > #(define-markup-command (instr layout props what) (markup?)
> > >    (interpret-markup layout props
> > >      (markup #:bold #:italic #:huge what)))
> > >
> > > (not tested thougth).
> > Well this works. This is a solution I had also found in the docs.
> >
> > So it seems it is not possible to _use_ functions the way I had wanted?
> > I have always either to use a markup function (and write "\markup")
> > or to first write the function name and provide the note as an argument.
> > Is that correct?
> Actually I don't know why _markup function_ behaves like this.
>
> Docs*) says:
>
> %----------------------------8<----------------------------------
> The markup macro builds markup expressions in Scheme while providing a
> LilyPond-like syntax. For example,
>
>      (markup #:column (#:line (#:bold #:italic "hello" #:raise 0.4 "world")
>                            #:larger #:line ("foo" "bar" "baz")))
>
> is equivalent to:
>
>      \markup \column { \line { \bold \italic "hello" \raise #0.4 "world" }
>                       \larger \line { foo bar baz } }
> %----------------------------8<----------------------------------
>
> But is that really equivalent? Why markup function should (shouldn't it?) be
> preceeded with \markup ?
>
> I don't know actually. Sorry.
Well, that's actually a snippet that I also had problems with.
I think it depends on the perspective.
It is equivalent in the sense that writing the above Scheme snippet 
within a function will give the same result as writing the lilypond 
snippet within a music expression.
But I think actually the Scheme expression returns a markup object 
containing everything from the first #.
So in order to use it you can replace everything after the "\markup" by 
the result of the function.

So if it is at all possible one would have to create a function that 
returns the "\markup" command as well as the markup object created in 
the above example.
Of course I don't have a clue as to how to achieve this. But my vaguely 
remembered programming experience leads me to believe that it should be 
possible.

Any ideas anyone?
Or should I just drop this and use
c4 \markup \inst "Vl."
?

Best
Urs
> _____________________
>   * 
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/extending/markup-construction-in-scheme