Re: Time signature markups

[Hans Aberg]

> On 1 Nov 2014, at 13:53, Dan Eble <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 13:01 , Hans Aberg <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:02, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dan Eble wrote Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:34 AM
>>> 
>>>> time-signature.cc <http://time-signature.cc/> has a comment at the top 
>>>> saying, “This file should go; the formatting can completely be done with 
>>>> markups.”  Can anyone point me to a good example of that, or is it a 
>>>> unique idea?
>>> 
>>> Well, that comment was placed in the file by Han-Wen in Sep 2003, so doing 
>>> it doesn't seem excessively urgent.
>> 
>> One cannot have separate markups on clef, key and time signatures, because 
>> they end up at the same markup event time. So perhaps that calls for the 
>> opposite of the above mentioned file.
> 
> Please bear with my shallow knowledge of Lilypond.  I’m not sure what action 
> you suggest.

One might want to have markups using
  \mark \markup { "..." }
However, if tried simultaneously clef, key and time signatures, LilyPond will 
see they occur at the same time, and trash all but one. A similar problem 
appears if one wants markup both above and below the staff. There are snippets 
for workarounds, but they are not very convenient.

> Maybe because the comment is so old, there is a looser interpretation that is 
> still a good idea, like “this should be done in Scheme."
> 
> For example, I see that in define-grobs.scm, BarLine’s stencil property is 
> defaulted to ly:bar-line::print, which is defined in bar-line.scm.  On the 
> other hand, ly:time-signature::print is defined in C++.  Would I go wrong 
> trying to following BarLine?

I’m not sure what the comment means, but the markup system has some limitations 
- if you move it over to there, I worried it might cut on other markup 
possibilities.