Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

>> How much sense would it make for there to be a separate \mark-style command
>> that functioned identically but didn't mess with the counter?
> 
> What do you mean?  Neither \mark #4 nor \mark "G" mess with the counter.

The point is that, if \addAt (or whatever) is “relative to marks”, then 
currently every \mark would “reset” the relativity.
But then every new \mark (e.g., \mark #4) would reset the relativity, and throw 
off all existing \addAt items.

So with a new command \mark-style (or perhaps the opposite? \rmark for 
‘rehearsal mark’ or ‘relative mark’, or something like that?), you could have 
one set of marks which [only] defines the ‘relativity points’, and another set 
of marks which outputs ‘non-relativity-resetting’ grobs.

As Marc points out, this could be handled equally well with another (non \mark) 
item:

> Perhaps some kind of "internal" marks that can be set without appearing
> in the score at all, just for the sake of being called by \addAt ?
> ...music ...
> \internalMark "ViolinsStartHere"
> ... more music ...
> followed by
> \addAt (4 3/8 "ViolinsStartHere") { ... fancy stuff … }

We already have \tag. Maybe that could be used?

In any case, it’s all academic to me at the moment: until proven otherwise, I’m 
going under the assumption that Jan-Peter’s edition engraver does all of this 
and far more, so there’s no need to even worry about it.  =)

Cheers,
Kieren.