Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
> c): Add \dynamic know and later find a special name for Harm's > dynamic engine. (d) You add now `\dynamic` in a first MR. Eventually, Harm's stuff gets applied in another MR under the same name, extending your stuff.[*] IMHO there is no necessity to provide `convert-ly` rules between development versions, especially since the LilyPond's current micro version is still a single digit. Werner [*] Under the assumption that this actually makes sense.
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Hi David, Am 13.12.21 um 08:05 schrieb David Kastrup: But the remark in the documentation that, if one uses a music function instead of an event function, one would always have to use it with -/_/^, seems to be obsolete now. No, it isn't. Put \displayLilyMusic (or other music functions) before either. There is now a cleanup pass collecting loose pieces in sequential expressions but it does not come in time for assembling the arguments of music functions. Ah, thanks for the explanation. In other words, LilyPond is now so robust that it's gotten harder to demonstrate how things go wrong if one uses music functions instead of event functions. But https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/extending/event-functions.html needs an overhaul anyway; I'll try to work on this. Lukas
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes: > Hi all, > > Am 12.12.21 um 22:52 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: >> >> Maybe I'm going too far in my belief that "standard tasks best >> should not require # characters and scheme", but shouldn't we >> provide a LilyPond syntax interface for this? It's not so uncommon >> to want custom dynamic expressions after all: >> >> dynamic = >> #(define-music-function (text) (markup?) (make-dynamic-script text)) > > Thanks for your thoughts, everybody! Some questions/further thoughts: > > 1) > Right, it should be an event function. In fact, it's currently _the_ > example of a custom event function in the documentation: > https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/extending/event-functions.html > (which consequently should be replaced by something more interesting > and less standard). But the remark in the documentation that, if one > uses a music function instead of an event function, one would always > have to use it with -/_/^, seems to be obsolete now. No, it isn't. Put \displayLilyMusic (or other music functions) before either. There is now a cleanup pass collecting loose pieces in sequential expressions but it does not come in time for assembling the arguments of music functions. > In fact, the warning applies to 2.19.83, but not to 2.20, which > surprises me (as I had thought that commits to 2.20 were a subset of > those to 2.19.83.) -- David Kastrup
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Hi all, Am 12.12.21 um 22:52 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: Maybe I'm going too far in my belief that "standard tasks best should not require # characters and scheme", but shouldn't we provide a LilyPond syntax interface for this? It's not so uncommon to want custom dynamic expressions after all: dynamic = #(define-music-function (text) (markup?) (make-dynamic-script text)) Thanks for your thoughts, everybody! Some questions/further thoughts: 1) Right, it should be an event function. In fact, it's currently _the_ example of a custom event function in the documentation: https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/extending/event-functions.html (which consequently should be replaced by something more interesting and less standard). But the remark in the documentation that, if one uses a music function instead of an event function, one would always have to use it with -/_/^, seems to be obsolete now. In fact, the warning applies to 2.19.83, but not to 2.20, which surprises me (as I had thought that commits to 2.20 were a subset of those to 2.19.83.) 2) What about the old make-dynamic-script? I agree that \make-dynamic-script is not a nice name for a syntax function. If we provide something like \dynamic, should make-dynamic-script be removed? If so, would the following be the right thing to do in a convert-ly rule? - Replace #(make-dynamic-script SOMETHING) by \dynamic #SOMETHING - and (maybe) afterwards replace (make-dynamic-script SOMETHING) by (dynamic SOMETHING) to catch uses inside scheme? 3) I knew about Harm's highly complex dynamics function but didn't have it at hand - thanks, Kieren, for providing the link to https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-09/txtoVtTEvm7jG.txt I'd love to have this in the standard codebase (if Harm is fine with this), but this makes the scope of my proposed addition explode. Since perfect is the enemy of the good, I think I'd rather to the "easy" thing first, although it would be nice if Harm's function, once added, gets the name \dynamic. I see two options: a): Add the proposed simple event function under a different name: \dyn or \simpleDynamic, then later add Harm's function as \dynamic and maybe see if it's reasonable to declare \dyn/\simpleDynamic obsolete? b): Add \dynamic right now as the simple event function and later give it a huge enhancement in Harm's function, while trying not to break existing code (which might be hard). and for the sake of completeness also: c): Add \dynamic know and later find a special name for Harm's dynamic engine. Opinions? Lukas
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Hi Lukas, > Maybe I'm going too far in my belief that "standard tasks best should not > require # characters and scheme" The limit does not exist. ;) > but shouldn't we provide a LilyPond syntax interface for this? Yes. Do you know Harm's work in this direction? https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-09/txtoVtTEvm7jG.txt Cheers, Kieren.
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
On 2021-12-12 3:48 pm, David Kastrup wrote: Aaron Hill writes: On 2021-12-12 3:19 pm, David Kastrup wrote: and one could instead define it as make-dynamic-script = #(define-event-function (str) (ly:markup?) (make-music 'AbsoluteDynamicEvent 'text str)) Did you mean just markup? or is ly:markup? a special predicate? Ouch. Of course the former. Just checking. It would not have surprised me if I had overlooked something in the software. When doing Scheme work especially, I find there is often something Guile provides as a built-in that I wasted time creating myself. -- Aaron Hill
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Aaron Hill writes: > On 2021-12-12 3:19 pm, David Kastrup wrote: >> and one could instead define it as >> make-dynamic-script = >> #(define-event-function (str) (ly:markup?) >>(make-music 'AbsoluteDynamicEvent 'text str)) > > Did you mean just markup? or is ly:markup? a special predicate? Ouch. Of course the former. -- David Kastrup
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
On 2021-12-12 3:19 pm, David Kastrup wrote: and one could instead define it as make-dynamic-script = #(define-event-function (str) (ly:markup?) (make-music 'AbsoluteDynamicEvent 'text str)) Did you mean just markup? or is ly:markup? a special predicate? -- Aaron Hill
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> Le 12/12/2021 à 22:52, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>>> Use a real dynamic script. These care care of spacing for you.
>>>
>>> \version "2.22.1"
>>>
>>> psubito =
>>> #(make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { p \normal-text \italic "subito" } #})
>>>
>>> { d'16_\psubito \cresc \repeat unfold 14 d'16 d'\f | }
>>
>> Maybe I'm going too far in my belief that "standard tasks best
>> should not require # characters and scheme", but shouldn't we
>> provide a LilyPond syntax interface for this? It's not so uncommon
>> to want custom dynamic expressions after all:
>>
>> dynamic =
>> #(define-music-function (text) (markup?) (make-dynamic-script text))
>>
>> {
>> c\dynamic sfpmf
>> c\dynamic \markup { \normal-text \italic subito f }
>> }
>
>
>
> I was thinking exactly along the same lines ;-)
>
> I would approve a patch adding this function.
One could cheat: make-dynamic-script is currently defined as
#(define (make-dynamic-script str)
(make-music 'AbsoluteDynamicEvent
'text str))
and one could instead define it as
make-dynamic-script =
#(define-event-function (str) (ly:markup?)
(make-music 'AbsoluteDynamicEvent 'text str))
which would retain the old functionality while also providing
\make-dynamic-script
which of course does not follow naming conventions. Sigh. At any rate,
it should be defined using define-event-function rather than
define-music-function .
--
David Kastrup
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Le 12/12/2021 à 22:52, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
Hi Jean,
Use a real dynamic script. These care care of spacing for you.
\version "2.22.1"
psubito =
#(make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { p \normal-text \italic "subito" } #})
{ d'16_\psubito \cresc \repeat unfold 14 d'16 d'\f | }
Maybe I'm going too far in my belief that "standard tasks best should
not require # characters and scheme", but shouldn't we provide a
LilyPond syntax interface for this? It's not so uncommon to want
custom dynamic expressions after all:
dynamic =
#(define-music-function (text) (markup?) (make-dynamic-script text))
{
c\dynamic sfpmf
c\dynamic \markup { \normal-text \italic subito f }
}
I was thinking exactly along the same lines ;-)
I would approve a patch adding this function.
Best,
Jean
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Hi Jean,
Use a real dynamic script. These care care of spacing for you.
\version "2.22.1"
psubito =
#(make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { p \normal-text \italic "subito" } #})
{ d'16_\psubito \cresc \repeat unfold 14 d'16 d'\f | }
Maybe I'm going too far in my belief that "standard tasks best should
not require # characters and scheme", but shouldn't we provide a
LilyPond syntax interface for this? It's not so uncommon to want custom
dynamic expressions after all:
dynamic =
#(define-music-function (text) (markup?) (make-dynamic-script text))
{
c\dynamic sfpmf
c\dynamic \markup { \normal-text \italic subito f }
}
Lukas
Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Le 12/12/2021 à 21:24, Ahanu Banerjee a écrit :
Hello,
When creating a crescendo following a custom dynamic marking (e.g.,
piano subito), I am having trouble moving the start of the spanner to
a point following the dynamic markup.
What would be the best way of doing this? Example below. Thanks!
\version "2.20.0"
{ d'16_\markup { \dynamic p \italic "subito" } \cresc \repeat
unfold 14 d'16 d'\f | }
Use a real dynamic script. These care care of spacing for you.
\version "2.22.1"
psubito =
#(make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { p \normal-text \italic "subito" } #})
{ d'16_\psubito \cresc \repeat unfold 14 d'16 d'\f | }
See
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-attached-to-notes#index-make_002ddynamic_002dscript-1
Regards,
Jean
Crescendo after custom dynamic marking
Hello,
When creating a crescendo following a custom dynamic marking (e.g., piano
subito), I am having trouble moving the start of the spanner to a point
following the dynamic markup.
What would be the best way of doing this? Example below. Thanks!
\version "2.20.0"
{ d'16_\markup { \dynamic p \italic "subito" } \cresc \repeat unfold 14
d'16 d'\f | }
-Ahanu
