Re: Rep: ScholarLY - introduction and call for collaboration

[Urs Liska]

Am 30.01.2015 um 21:50 schrieb Philippe Massart:

It turns out that custom annotation types were not properly handled. \annotate looks up the LaTeX value in an alist dictionary, and for custom annotations this simply returned "#f".

Pushed a fix, should work now.
Thanks for the report.

Best
Urs

Thanks :-)

I still have an issue on the example file, on the custom annotation, with this message:

./annotate.annotations.inp:15: Undefined control sequence.

<argument> See \textbackslash what is \possible 

                                                [opts]{args}

l.15     {custom-annotation}

OK, this is stupid.
I used that example property to "show what is possible" in that LaTeX code is exported verbatim. But I didn't think about the fact that this example code is nonsense. Of course "\possible" is an "Undefined control sequence" ...
I think I should have given that example document slightly more care ...

I've updated to a more straightforward command. Thank you for reporting.

Something else I noted: the lilypond code in the custom annotation is transformed into a <LilyPond Music> tag in the .inp file. Is that normal?

I don't know if that's the ultimate solution but it's intended. As I wrote the properties can digest any single Scheme/LilyPond _expression_ including music. But if I wouldn't alter it the whole Scheme representation would be printed, and that is something one generally wouldn't want to do. There will have to be some ways to produce actual *music* from it (i.e. an engraved score fragment) but for now I think this is the best compromise. (For time signatures I managed to intercept them and print a meaningful result, but the other music types just were too complex for that.

Best
Urs

Philippe

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user