Re: Lower-case letter rehearsal marks

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> 2015-12-10 11:58 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Not sure why
>>>   foo-markup = \markup \bold \with-color #cyan \markletter \etc
>>>   \markup \foo #1
>>> does not work, as opposed to
>>>   bold-red-markup = \markup \bold \with-color #red \etc
>>>   \markup \bold-red "text"
>>
>> Anyway, should this rather work using the syntax
>>
>> \markup bold-red = \bold \with-color #red \etc
>>
>> ?  this would have the advantage of hiding the way \markup introduces
>> its own name space, and one could use the full define-markup-command
>> resulting in (markup #:bold-red ...) and make-bold-red-markup working as
>> well.
>
> Nice advantages.
>
>> But it seems weird to use this for \etc-style functions only.
>
> And right now
> \markup bold-red
> prints the string "bold-red".

And \markup bold-red = at top level is a syntax error now.  No
conflict.  I tested that already in the grammar but without tying any
useful action to the grammar rule.

> Having
> \markup bold-red = <ẃhat-ever>
> ,i.e. a definition might lead to confusions.

The compiler isn't confused.  The question is more about the user.

> Is it possible to create a sort-of-markup-macro to be used like:
>
> \sort-of-markup-macro sort-of-markup-macro-name = <whatever>
>
> instead?
> (Just brain-storming)

Uh, that went over my head.  Care to elaborate?  I cannot really fit the
wildcard pieces here.

>> And the whole markup-macro machinery is crazy anyway.
>
> I trust your expertise.

Well, markups in general...

-- 
David Kastrup