Reinhold Kainhofer <reinh...@kainhofer.com> writes: > On 26/09/2012 14:34, David Kastrup wrote: >> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: >> >>> Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >>> >>>>>> It would be tremendously helpful if you can show possible syntax >>>>>> *alternatives* instead of just pretending to be a naysayer. >>>>> I've posted actual working definitions for that purpose. >>>> It seems I've missed that, lost in the many examples you've given to >>>> demonstrate what doesn't work. >>>>> They would definitely simplify the kind of entry you are asking for. >>>> Please repeat. >>> Sigh. >>> >>> at = >>> #(define-music-function (parser location time event music) >>> (ly:duration? ly:music? ly:music?) >>> "Place @var{event} at a relative duration @var{time} in relation >>> to @var{music}." >>> #{ << { \skip $time <>$event } $music >> #}) >>> >>> { >>> \at 4 \< >>> \at 1*2/3 \! >>> c'1\p >>> } >> [12 days later, and no followup again] >> >> Let's just continue pretending me to be a naysayer then. > > You demonstrated that a solution is possible, but quite inconsistent with > the lilypond language: You have to write the dynamic BEFORE the note, > although it should be printed AFTER the note...
It is conceivable to cook up stuff that would allow to write something like c'1\p-\at 4 \< -\at 1*2/3 \! here. > In your example, what you want is note with "p", hairpin start, hairpin > end. But what you have to write is hairpin start, hairpin end, note with > "p". > > So, yes, such hacks as workarounds are certainly possible, but IMO they > currently don't really fit well with the general concepts of the lilypond > language (i.e. all dynamics are written using postfix notation)... If you don't even bother to reply, how am I supposed to guess what your problem with my approach is? In my opinion, dynamics are one case where using postfix syntax was a mistake, exactly because they are not inherently associated with a particular note but rather a moment of time. It is _that_ choice which does not really fit well with the general concepts of the LilyPond language, and in consequence dynamics are the _dominant_ example for use of <> and/or s1*0. So my preferred path to a remedy would rather be to un-postevent stuff that does not really fit the postevent category rather than to mess with the timing relations of postevents. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel