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

[Valentin Villenave]

2008/5/23 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:

>> or even textual annotation which
>> can be applied to a note with either '-' or '\markup?
>
> In current GDP terminology, these are "Text scripts".

Which is not necessarily sensible, since TextScript is already a grob.

> 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 }}.

Then perhaps we could name "foo bar" a "quoted text line"? (I like
"line" much better than "string", and it conveys the same idea).

> 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 }.

Yes. Definitely.

> With the "atomic", I was trying to get to a general explanation

"atomic" is too scary -- no offense Trevor ;)

> 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 fine with this sentence. But this may be better phrased the other
way around:

every LilyPond command that requires a markup can accept a "quoted
line" as well, as a shorthand.

Cheers,
Valentin