Re: tempoMark - documentation and use

[Trevor Daniels]

Jonathan Kulp wrote Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:22 AM


> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Yes, come up with another score marking.  Granted, it might get
> [snip]

I agree, that's best for the moment.

> Before I make a bunch of replacements and a patch, can anyone see 
> a potential problem with changing the example in LM 5.1.5 to use 
> these functions instead:
>
> %%%%%%
>
> mpdolce = #(make-dynamic-script (markup #:hspace 1 #:translate 
> (cons 5 0)
>   #:line(#:dynamic "mp" #:text #:italic "dolce" )))
>
> inst = #(define-music-function (parser location string) (string?)
>        (make-music
>                'TextScriptEvent
>                'direction UP
>                'text (markup #:bold (#:box string))))
>
> \relative c'' {
>   \tempo 4=50
>   a4.\mpdolce d8 cis4--\glissando a | b4 bes a2
>   \once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'padding = #2.0
>   \inst "clarinet"
>   cis4.\< d8 e4 fis | g8(\! fis)-. e( d)-. cis2
> }
>
> %%%%%%
>
> I got the "inst" function from the LSR and it seems like a good 
> one to use in a discussion of stylesheets and storing variables in 
> separate \include files.  If it looks o.k. then I'll change all of 
> the instances of the previous "tempoMark" to "inst" in LM 5.1.5.

OK.  Looks fine to me.  Let me have a patch.  (I shall be
away from 14 to 25 May, so I won't be able to respond during
that time.)

> Now there's also a "tempoMark" function defined in NR 6.1.2, 
> Interfaces for programmers.  My instinct is to leave this one 
> alone--it is not obsolete, since the predefined \tempo command 
> does not take a $padding argument like this bit of scheme does, 
> right?

Yes, let's leave this as it is.

> Here's the code in question:
>
> %%%%%%%
>
> tempoMark = #(define-music-function (parser location padding 
> marktext)
> (number? string?)
>
> #{
>   \once \override Score . RehearsalMark #'padding = $padding
>   \once \override Score . RehearsalMark #'extra-spacing-width = 
> #'(+inf.0 . -inf.0)
> \mark \markup { \bold $marktext }
> #})
>
> \relative c'' {
>   c2 e
>   \tempoMark #3.0 #"Allegro"
>   g c
> }
>
> %%%%%%
>
>
> Am I right not to mess with this one?
>
> Best,
>
> Jon
>
>
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:31:49PM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
> > > I'm looking at this example now and am not sure what to do with 
> > > it.  While it's
> > > true that the tempoMark scheme function itself is not necessary 
> > > now that \tempo
> > > does the same thing, it's also true that the point of this 
> > > passage in the LM
> > > 5.1.5 is to show how use definitions and to place them in 
> > > separate \include
> > > files, not to teach "how to display a tempo marking."  Maybe I 
> > > should come up
> > > with some other score marking that could be used instead of a 
> > > tempo marking, or
> > > do you think that whole macro can just be deleted from the 
> > > example and the
> > > "mpdolce" macro will suffice as an example to stick in a 
> > > definitions file?
> > > Trevor, do you have thoughts on this?  This example also occurs 
> > > in NR 6.1.2,
> > > Interfaces for programmers.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Graham Percival 
> > > <address@hidden>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >     Where in the world is Carmen Sandi... oops, wrong example.
> > >
> > >     If "the \tempoMark" exaple is in the NR, then Jonathan 
> > > should
> > >     figure out what you're talking about and prepare the patch.
> > >
> > >     If "the \tempoMark" example is in the LM... then hey, this 
> > > is
> > >     simple enough, Jonathan should still prepare a patch. 
> > > Unless it'd
> > >     destroy the continuity of the LM or something, in which case 
> > > he
> > >     should consult with Trevor.
> > >
> > >     Cheers,
> > >     - Graham
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Kulp
> http://www.jonathankulp.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel