That sounds like the right way to go -- choose one format for the messages.
I don't have much experience with this, but I'm excellent at using trial
and error, and happy to help with the testing.
I live in Brisbane, Australia, and do a lot of typesetting for a
conductor/composer who lives in Texas, USA. In the few short days I've been
using annotate it has already made my communications about
changes/corrections so much simpler and accurate.
Craig
On Sat Feb 07 2015 at 6:54:03 AM Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> Am 06.02.2015 um 20:28 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
>
> Hi Urs,
>
> I worked out one of the problems.
>
>
> Thank you for testing. This at least shows me where the problem is -
> unfortunately an area I'm quite unfamiliar with ...
>
>
>
> If there is only one lilyglyph in the message, surrounding it with the
> "@"-s is fine.
> This works:
> message = "Is this @\lilyDynamics{p}@ necessary?"
>
>
> If there are two lilyglyphs in the one annotate message the "@"-s need
> to surround both.
> This doesn't work:
> message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{}@ go all the way to the
> @\lilyDynamics{ff}@?"
>
> This does work:
> message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{} go all the way to the
> \lilyDynamics{ff}@?"
>
>
> OK, the problem seems to be that the regular expression that matches "any
> text between two "@" characters" doesn't correctly work when there are more
> than two such characters in the string. I would have to sort out how that
> regular expression can match these pairs independently.
>
> Your solution just circumvents the problem but is actually not acceptable
> (means: it is not acceptable that such a workaround is necessary) because
> that means that *anything* between the two LaTeX expressions will be also
> parsed literally, which may be OK in cases but may also cause trouble in
> other cases, e.g.
>
> message = "The @\crotchet is wrong (see #12), but the \quaver@ should
> be fine."
>
> Here I'd want the # to be printed (referencing an issue in the tracker),
> but as it is it would be printed literally instead of the escaped version
> \#.
>
> But this makes me think if that hybrid approach of possibly mixed plain
> text and LaTeX code is really a good idea after all. Maybe it would be
> better to decide about a format for messages and simply treat the message
> consequently. That would mean there should be a global option saying
> "message body is entered as plaintext|latex|markdown|html" (as a project
> wide preference) and/or there can be a local property in an annotation
> saying
> message-format = "latex"
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Urs
>
>
>
> I still can't get italic text to work.
> @\textit{cresc.}@
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 10:34:48 AM Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 06.02.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
>>
>> Thanks Urs,
>>
>> I had to try many different combinations, and don't ask me why, but this
>> is what I eventually found worked:
>>
>> @\crescHairpin{}
>>
>> and
>>
>> \lilyDynamics{ff}@
>>
>> Why one of them needs the "@" symbol at the start and the other at the
>> end I don't know.
>>
>> I still can't get any variation of @\textit{dim.}@ to work.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Hm, well, that's definitely not what it should be like.
>> I'll try to have a look ASAP.
>>
>>
>> Urs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 8:37:56 AM Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.02.2015 um 23:19 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm having some trouble getting the Lilyglyphs to display in Latex
>>> after exporting the annotate inp file.
>>>
>>> Do you put the Lilyglyphs code into the annotate message section?
>>> e.g.
>>> message = "This \decrescHairpin\ is very long. Would a \textit{dim.} be
>>> better?"
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> message = "Should this \crescHairpin\ go all the way to the \ff?"
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> You can put arbitrary LaTeX code - and that includes lilyglyphs - in a
>>> message section, but you have to enclose everything in "@"-s.
>>> Normally LaTeX special characters are escaped so that they _print_ as
>>> desired, so
>>> message = "Here you should use \crescHairpin"
>>> would be translated to the following in the .inp file:
>>> {Here you should use \textbackslash crescHairpin}
>>>
>>> I think your above examples should be written as:
>>>
>>> message = "This @\decrescHairpin@ is very long. Would a @\textit{dim.}@
>>> be better?"
>>> message = "Should this @\crescHairpin@ go all the way to the
>>> @\lilyDynamics{ff}@"
>>>
>>> HTH
>>> Urs
>>>
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lilypond-user mailing
>>> listlilypond-user@gnu.orghttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lilypond-user mailing list
>>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
