Re: Weirdo code?

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> On 28/01/18 20:09, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Wol's lists <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> I've just tried to do a cut-n-paste into a piece of music, from
>>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/bars
>>>
>>> At the very bottom you'll find
>>>
>>> \relative c' {
>>>   c1 \mark \markup { \musicglyph "scripts.segno" }
>>>   c1 \mark \markup { \musicglyph "scripts.coda" }
>>>   c1 \mark \markup { \musicglyph "scripts.ufermata" }
>>>   c1
>>> }
>>>
>>> Okay, I was only copying the markup bit - I wanted it as markup in the
>>> middle of the bar - but I had to add a # as follows:
>>>
>>> \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.coda" }
>>>
>>> Looking at the code behind the web page, it looks like that is
>>> correct, so this is really just a curious enquiry - why is the #
>>> required if I want a markup, but it's not required if it's a markup
>>> within a mark ???
>> 
>> Different versions.  It's just recently that you could write strings
>> within a markup without # before them.  The Documentation is likely
>> newer than your version of LilyPond.
>> 
> Thank you both ...
>
> I'd like to run the latest version :-) but at the moment my main machine
> is bit-rotting until I get the chance to build my new one...

I think I merged it into the 2.20 release branch already since the
change itself (though not its consequences) is pretty confined and it is
a prime candidate for a discrepancy between unstable and stable versions
going to trip up relations between helpers and askers on these mailing
lists.

-- 
David Kastrup