Re: Crescendo after custom dynamic marking

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

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