Re: Any objections to branching off a stable branch for 2.20?

[David Kastrup]

Paul <address@hidden> writes:

> On 07/17/2017 02:14 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Currently there is a bit of a lull (not entirely graceful due to me not
>> keeping up with things all the best), so the time seems convenient.
>
> No objections here.  What's the latest thinking/status for issue 3884?
> Anything I can / should do?
>
> Patch: Add on-page-greater-than, -less-than (on-the-fly)
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3884/
>
>> There are a few "critical" bugs outstanding, the "Changes" document
>> should be reordered to be systematic rather than in reverse time order,
>> and I'd want to add a bit of syntactic Scheme and LilyPond sugar of the
>>
>> \markup blabla = \markup \with-color #red \etc
>
> I like the goal of defining named markup functions via \etc  but I
> find this syntax a bit odd, with the `=` to the right of `\markup` .
> I can't think of other cases in LilyPond like this:
>
> \onething another =
>
> where a '\' is to the left of an `=`.

Actually, I have code where you can put a lot to the left of an equals
sign when defined via a function with setter.  It had some parser
conflicts however, basically because

{ a = b }

is actually valid music (try figuring out why).

> It's usually `a = b` or `\a b` but not `\a = b` or `\a b = c`.

You can only use markup functions when refered to in markup mode, so it
makes sense to me to define them in markup mode.

> Are there other options that wouldn't introduce this new pattern?
> Would something like this work?
>
> \define-markup blabla \markup \with-color #red \etc

A very strange reserved word.

-- 
David Kastrup