Graham Percival wrote:
Yes, come up with another score marking. Granted, it might get
[snip]
Before I make a bunch of replacements and a patch, can anyone see a
potential problem with changing the example in LM 5.1.5 to use these
functions instead:
%%%%%%
mpdolce = #(make-dynamic-script (markup #:hspace 1 #:translate (cons 5 0)
#:line(#:dynamic "mp" #:text #:italic "dolce" )))
inst = #(define-music-function (parser location string) (string?)
(make-music
'TextScriptEvent
'direction UP
'text (markup #:bold (#:box string))))
\relative c'' {
\tempo 4=50
a4.\mpdolce d8 cis4--\glissando a | b4 bes a2
\once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'padding = #2.0
\inst "clarinet"
cis4.\< d8 e4 fis | g8(\! fis)-. e( d)-. cis2
}
%%%%%%
I got the "inst" function from the LSR and it seems like a good one to
use in a discussion of stylesheets and storing variables in separate
\include files. If it looks o.k. then I'll change all of the instances
of the previous "tempoMark" to "inst" in LM 5.1.5.
Now there's also a "tempoMark" function defined in NR 6.1.2, Interfaces
for programmers. My instinct is to leave this one alone--it is not
obsolete, since the predefined \tempo command does not take a $padding
argument like this bit of scheme does, right? Here's the code in
question:
%%%%%%%
tempoMark = #(define-music-function (parser location padding marktext)
(number? string?)
#{
\once \override Score . RehearsalMark #'padding = $padding
\once \override Score . RehearsalMark #'extra-spacing-width =
#'(+inf.0 . -inf.0)
\mark \markup { \bold $marktext }
#})