I wasn't aware we still have the old scheme-coding in LSR, a (very) quick search offered the following snippets, which may be rewritten to use newer possibilities.
I'll go through them one by one, up to now I didn't check whether they are doc-snippets, though.
Well, it's not really "the old scheme-coding" in this particular snippet: I cannot even remember whether it had ever been necessary to revert to Scheme for this particular task.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
You just need to write \tweak #'font-size #-3 \flageolet instead. It's not a matter of not being able to store an expression tweaked with \tweak in a variable, merely one of the \tweak arguments needing to be typed explicitly as symbol/number. Not entirely sure about the number, but defnitely regarding the symbol.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
and/or -\flageolet ? I am pretty sure that one could assign post-events to variables and that \tweak would work on either post-event or normal music; either feature was preexisting before I started fiddling with music functions. One just needed to get the syntax right...
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
smallFlageolet = -\tweak #'font-size #-3 \flageolet
works indeed, although http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/the-tweak-command
stated:
The \tweak command cannot be used inside a variable.
Thanks your "fiddling with music functions" all this works better nowadays, and not only this ...
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Well, the documentation tends to be maintained to a large amount by people not having written the underlying and likely underdocumented code. Often they make experiments, and when those experiments fail, generalize from the results.
Of course that is unfortunate because exactly when it is hard to get things right for obscure and/or technical reasons, the documentation is most necessary.
I think this is what originally happened with
commit 95f4d574b1070683fe6d596a88cbe230203a7a72
Author: Werner Lemberg wl@gnu.org
Date: Tue Feb 27 09:35:26 2007 +0100
DocumentSchemereplacementsamplefor\tweak.
Fixnodename(itmustnotcontain`.' followed by a space).
and that has survived and inspired code, in particular in connection with \flageolet, for years. In music expressions, you still need to do -\tweak so it's not like things have become a whole lot more consistent. One could actually let LilyPond complain with a more educational error message instead, but in this particular case silent acceptance seems not to do much harm. And my preferred end goal would be allowing just \tweak without preceding - everywhere but that's really tricky.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Meanwhile I changed the LSR-snippets below, reflecting the \tweak-syntax. The first two are doc-snippets,
Vertical line as a baroque articulation mark http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=620
tagged docs
font-size tweak is removed, it never worked on draw-line
It definitely should be done in the LSR and not in snippets/new, and looking at the LSR now it looks like someone has beaten me to it.
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=315
It will need an LSR import to show in the docs. Assuming I remember, I'll do that before the next relelase.
Suggest you mark this as invalid or something like it now.
Diff:
Looks like already being fixed in LSR, marking as invalid.
Yep, and done
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=315
I wasn't aware we still have the old scheme-coding in LSR, a (very) quick search offered the following snippets, which may be rewritten to use newer possibilities.
I'll go through them one by one, up to now I didn't check whether they are doc-snippets, though.
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=620
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=761
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=485
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=538
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=643
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=690
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=739
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=739
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=772
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=773
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=999
Well, it's not really "the old scheme-coding" in this particular snippet: I cannot even remember whether it had ever been necessary to revert to Scheme for this particular task.
Doesn't work with v2.14.2.
I still keep that version for research/testing
You just need to write \tweak #'font-size #-3 \flageolet instead. It's not a matter of not being able to store an expression tweaked with \tweak in a variable, merely one of the \tweak arguments needing to be typed explicitly as symbol/number. Not entirely sure about the number, but defnitely regarding the symbol.
Well, you know it's more of historical interest, not to say archaeological ...
But this code:
returns:
Let me guess.
and/or
-\flageolet? I am pretty sure that one could assign post-events to variables and that \tweak would work on either post-event or normal music; either feature was preexisting before I started fiddling with music functions. One just needed to get the syntax right...Well, the documentation tends to be maintained to a large amount by people not having written the underlying and likely underdocumented code. Often they make experiments, and when those experiments fail, generalize from the results.
Of course that is unfortunate because exactly when it is hard to get things right for obscure and/or technical reasons, the documentation is most necessary.
I think this is what originally happened with
commit 95f4d574b1070683fe6d596a88cbe230203a7a72
Author: Werner Lemberg wl@gnu.org
Date: Tue Feb 27 09:35:26 2007 +0100
and that has survived and inspired code, in particular in connection with
\flageolet, for years. In music expressions, you still need to do-\tweakso it's not like things have become a whole lot more consistent. One could actually let LilyPond complain with a more educational error message instead, but in this particular case silent acceptance seems not to do much harm. And my preferred end goal would be allowing just\tweakwithout preceding-everywhere but that's really tricky.Meanwhile I changed the LSR-snippets below, reflecting the \tweak-syntax. The first two are doc-snippets,
Vertical line as a baroque articulation mark
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=620
tagged docs
font-size tweak is removed, it never worked on draw-line
Showing the same articulation above and below a note or chord
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=631
tagged docs
Harmonic noteheads in a chord
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=485
additionally a remark about \etc is inserted
Adding punctuation to the end of an extender in melismata
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=643
Making \thumb behave like other fingerings
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=690
Dynamics with attributes aligned on dynamic sign (e.g. "poco f" aligned on "f")
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=739
Adding double and triple tonguing indications for woodwind
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=772
Fingering spanner
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=999
Adding a laissezVibrer tie to only one note of a chord
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=714
additionally a remark about \etc is inserted
Controlling of the pitch range in a score
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=773