Re: Quoted text (was Re: When is "-" required in articulations?)

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 08:12:43 +0100
"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Graham Percival wrote May 22, 2008 11:39 AM
> > Failing all else, I suppose we /could/ use the terms "markup text"
> > and "quoted text".  I mean, there are more uses for these terms
> > (whatever we end up calling them) than just c^\markup{foo} and
> > c-"foo".  I'm thinking of things like
> >  \set InstrumentName = #'"Bb clarinet"
> > vs.
> >  \set InstrumentName = \markup{ B\flat clarinet }
> 
> Are we looking for a name for -any- object which is
> delimited by double quotes and contains literal text,

Yes, this one.  I think.

> or a name for the textual annotation which is applied
> to a note with '-',

I'm not clear about the difference between this and the next one.

> or even textual annotation which
> can be applied to a note with either '-' or '\markup?

In current GDP terminology, these are "Text scripts".


I'd like to say something like this... but I don't know if it's
true or not:
Fundamentally, all text is produced via \markup.  However, there
is a shortcut for defining simple pieces of text: you can write
"foo bar".  Internally, this expands to
\markup{ \line { foo bar }}.

That way, we don't need to re-explain about how to create text
every time we introduce text scripts, headers, instrument names,
metronome markings, etc.  We could just say "The title is markup
text" and people will know that they can use either title = "foo"
or title = \markup{ \fancy \formatting foo }.

*as far as I know*, anything in lilypond that accepts "blah blah"
also accepts \markup.


With the "atomic", I was trying to get to a general explanation
for things like this:
\markup {
  \center-align {
    foo
    "bar baz"
    mao
    "rtfm you idiot"
  }
}

where each line in this example is an "atom", and is treated as
indivisible by center-align (no need to add \line{ ...} around
entries with spaces in them).



> There is a difference.  For example the terms "text string"
> or "quoted text" could be used for the former, as in
> 
> "specify the version with '\version' followed by the
> version number as a text string" 

No; \version is a special case... let me rephase my earlier
statement: as far as I know, all lilypnod commands that accepts
*arbitrary* pieces of text inside "" also accept \markup.

> > I'm still not wild about "quoted text", though.
> 
> Me neither.  But the advantage is that it describes
> the essential characteristics of the object precisely -
> the quotes and the nature of the content - to anyone
> without requiring an explanation.

It's hard to argue against this.

Cheers,
- Graham