Re: Markup snippet breaking docs (\rotate)

[Neil Puttock]

2008/6/28 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:51:00 +0100
> "Neil Puttock" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> The following snippet works fine:
>>
>> @lilypond[verbatim,quote]
>> \\markup { foo \\rotate #180 bar }
>> @end lilypond
>>
>> Any idea what's going wrong?
>
> Maybe the # needs to be escaped somehow if it's not inside a {}?
> I'm pulling at straws here, though...

I don't know... it's strange that it only seems to affect \rotate.
It's not really a problem though; I'll just insert a snippet similar
to the one above instead.

> That said, I'd actually prefer it if all the examples were inside
> a
>  \markup { ... }
> or
>  \markup {
>    ...
>  }

OK, I've amended the snippets as required.

> I know that \markup \command { ... } also works, but to me it
> seems to be asking for trouble (especially if users try to copy
> and paste examples without really understanding them).
> In the NR, I make a special point of telling everybody to write
> out all {} <<>> fully, ie
> \new Voice {
>  \relative c' {
>    ...
>  }
> }
> instead of
> \new Voice \relative c' {
>  ...
> }

It's just as well you've mentioned this, since it's reminded me why
\smaller and \larger need careful nesting to work properly; otherwise
they pick up the default font-size and behave just like \small and
\large:

\markup { \huge foo \larger bar } fails, whereas

\markup { \huge { foo \larger bar } } works, since \larger gets the
overridden font-size from \huge.

There's one exception to \command { } though; \combine can only take
two markups as arguments, rather than a list. Do you think it's worth
noting this in its description?

Regards,
Neil