Re: Syntax for make-dynamic-script

[David Kastrup]

Colin Hall <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> 
>> Richard Shann <richard.shann <at> virgin.net> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 00:58 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> > I guess this $ notation is documented somewhere - searching around
>> > yesterday evening I came across this
>> > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-
> attached-to-notes#index-DynamicText
>> >
>> > which is where I suspect I got the notation I was using. Should that be
>> > using $ too
>> 
>> I repeat: with the exact given examples in the manual, the location data
>> is correct.
>
> Thanks for your help with this, David, it looks like
> Richard is able to engrave his music.
>
> Could you give me some advice on forming a good
> documentation enhancement tracker for
> the "$(" syntax? Perhaps there's a description
> in a commit that I can use.

Well, I have been thinking a bit about it.  When using music via #...,
the music really needs to be constructed for single use and not used
somewhere else.  So it should be feasible to put location data on it
like it is done for $...

So while one current difference in semantics between music entered via
$... and #... is that the former gets location data (just like \xxx
does) and the latter doesn't, we probably don't do people a favor by
having this additional difference between $... and #...

The question is how we actually want to be dealing with point-and-click
and errors occuring from within #{ ... #}.  For syntax errors, it does
not seem like anything but the location inside of #{ ... #} itself makes
sense.  But the location data for music might make more sense to be
associated with the text origin of the problematic construct.  Maybe we
should assign a location only to music that does not yet have one?

-- 
David Kastrup