Re: (de)cresendi syntax

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:20:29AM +0100, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> Le 16 mars 2009 16:31, Graham Percival <address@hidden> a écrit :
> > I don't think anybody else has replied, so I'll take a stab at it.
> 
> I've been working at a draft reply for a few days, but never found
> what I was looking for.

And clearly what you were looking for was **me**.  :)

> > Again, I'd rather use text for text dynamics.  What about \cresc
> > #"cresc. poco a poco" ?  i.e. if \cresc is used by itself, it
> > prints "cresc.", but if you provide the optional argument, that's
> > used instead of the default text?
> 
> Yes, but I'd really like to use this \cresc command of yours *after*
> the note (not before, as it is now).

Of course.  IMO, that's the most important part of any dynamic
work.

> Which is why, rather than a C++ parser change, what I'd really like to
> have is a (define-music-tweak) function, that could act like
> define-music-function but that would *not* take the music as an
> argument, that would just take the string and cons' it as a 'tweak
> property.

I am absolutely not arguing against this.  The only question is
who will produce such a wonder.  :)

If it's doable in pure scheme, then I guess that Frederic (sorry,
no accents)  can do it without recompiling lilypond?  If so, that
would be awesome.

Anybody want to hazard a guess about this possibility?

Cheers,
- Graham