Re: [Patch] Absolute dynamics as postfix text (issue2220041)

[Carl . D . Sorensen]

I like what you're doing here.  I have a couple of comments on the
regtests, and one on the definition of the dynamics.

Thanks,

Carl



http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expressive.itely
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (left):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expressive.itely#oldcode523
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:523: @lilypond[verbatim,quote]
I don't like eliminating the simple example.  Having both the simple and
complex example is much better, in my opinion.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expressive.itely
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expressive.itely#newcode539
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:539: Scheme command, that takes
any string or markup object as its argument.
I prefer

"through the scheme function @code{make-dynamic-script}"

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly
File ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly#newcode17
ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly:17: % sfz = \dynamic sfz
I view this list as defining the stuff that is acceptable for midi.  If
we're going to go this way (and I think it's probably good to go this
way -- I like what you're doing), then we probably ought to put some
kind of check for things that don't make midi sense.

For example, ffffff, or pfpfpfp.  I'm fine to go ahead and print the
dynamics, but there ought to be a warning that says something like
"dynamic cannot be represented in midi".  And somewhere, we'll still
need to have this equivalent list for midi-acceptable dynamics.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/