[Patch] Absolute dynamics as postfix text

Absolute dynamics as postfix text

This commit adds a \dynamic command to the parser,
which allows for straightforward dynamics such as

  sffz = \dynamic sffz

or

  c1 \dynamic "mp,_molto intenso"

etc.

This could not be implemented purely using Scheme, as the
only way to pass an argument is by using a music-function,
thereby forbidding postfix commands.  The upside with
this parser modification is that it acts as a drop-in replacement
for the way absolute-dynamic-events were previously handled.
make-dynamic-script has been updated accordingly, as well as
the documentation and the regtests (the only thing left to
implement is a suitable display-method).

\dynamic is also used as a markup command, but since the new
command lives in a different scope there is no conflict AFAICS.

A new dynamic-string markup command has also been added,
in order to parse the string argument given to \dynamic.
This command accepts plain dynamics as well as text indications and
composite indications mixing dynamics, text and punctuation.

[Valentin Villenave, 2010-09-15 13:39:41]

Greetings everybody,

This is probably not the kind of things anyone wants to see right now, but this
feature just seemed really nice to have; I've been aiming to implement it for
years. Of course, this surely can wait until the next dev cycle, but since it is
a mere drop-in replacement for existing code, it shouldn't (and doesn't AFAIK)
break anything.

This is my first non-pure-Scheme patch, so please bear with me :)

[Graham Percival (old account), 2010-09-15 14:05:40]

Initial comments, not a complete review.  BTW, these files just say "upload in
progress".  Could you re-upload the patch, maybe after a few fixes?

scm/define-markup-commands.scm   	  		scm/font.scm
scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:483: the @code{\dynamic} command.
I'd write simply
---
Custom centered dynamic marks can be created:
---

I know the old version "talked through the code", but I really don't think it's
necessary.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:486: sfzp = \dynamic sfzp
This is really a code comment rather than docs, but since I'm here anyway...
Could this be
  \dynamic { sfzp }
instead?  I get nervous without the {}.  This may well require a different
modification to the parser.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:541: By default, @{make-dynamic-script}
handles any markup object as
I think you mean: @code{}

This breaks the doc build.  *cough*  <grumpily glances around to make sure that
David isn't looking>you idiot</grumpy>

<fluffy>
I implore you, oh kind and gentle contributor, to check a full build, from
scratch, before proposing a large change.
</fluffy>

[Valentin Villenave, 2010-09-15 14:13:58]

On 2010/09/15 14:05:40, Graham Percival wrote:
> Initial comments, not a complete review.  BTW, these files just say "upload in
> progress".  Could you re-upload the patch, maybe after a few fixes?

New patchset uploaded.

> I'd write simply
> ---
> Custom centered dynamic marks can be created:
> ---
> 
> I know the old version "talked through the code", but I really don't think
it's
> necessary.

Will do.

> This is really a code comment rather than docs, but since I'm here anyway...
> Could this be
>   \dynamic { sfzp }
> instead?  I get nervous without the {}.  This may well require a different
> modification to the parser.

IMHO, \foo { blah } indicates a _mode_, such as markup mode or lyric mode.  This
is more like simple commands such as \bar and the like.

> I think you mean: @code{}

Yeah. Shit. <polite>Yikes</polite>

> I implore you, oh kind and gentle contributor, to check a full build, from
> scratch, before proposing a large change.

I have, but that was before I updated the docs :)

Cheers,
V.

[Carl, 2010-09-15 16:50:02]

I like what you're doing here.  I have a couple of comments on the regtests, and
one on the definition of the dynamics.

Thanks,

Carl

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expre...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (left):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expre...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:523: @lilypond[verbatim,quote]
I don't like eliminating the simple example.  Having both the simple and complex
example is much better, in my opinion.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expre...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/Documentation/notation/expre...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:539: Scheme command, that takes any
string or markup object as its argument.
I prefer

"through the scheme function @code{make-dynamic-script}"

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly
File ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2220041/diff/12001/ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly#n...
ly/dynamic-scripts-init.ly:17: % sfz = \dynamic sfz
I view this list as defining the stuff that is acceptable for midi.  If we're
going to go this way (and I think it's probably good to go this way -- I like
what you're doing), then we probably ought to put some kind of check for things
that don't make midi sense.

For example, ffffff, or pfpfpfp.  I'm fine to go ahead and print the dynamics,
but there ought to be a warning that says something like "dynamic cannot be
represented in midi".  And somewhere, we'll still need to have this equivalent
list for midi-acceptable dynamics.

[c_sorensen, 2010-09-15 17:04:07]

On 9/15/10 8:13 AM, "v.villenave@gmail.com" <v.villenave@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2010/09/15 14:05:40, Graham Percival wrote:
>> Initial comments, not a complete review.  BTW, these files just say
> 
>> This is really a code comment rather than docs, but since I'm here
> anyway...
>> Could this be
>>    \dynamic { sfzp }
>> instead?  I get nervous without the {}.  This may well require a
> different
>> modification to the parser.
> 
> IMHO, \foo { blah } indicates a _mode_, such as markup mode or lyric
> mode.  This is more like simple commands such as \bar and the like.
> 

I agree with Valentin here.

>> I think you mean: @code{}
> 
> Yeah. Shit. <polite>Yikes</polite>
>
<lily-list>mao</lily-list>
 
Thanks,

Carl

[Neil Puttock, 2010-09-15 20:08:15]

Hi Valentin,

I like the markup command, but I don't see the need for adding another keyword
just to avoid the inconvenience of using a dash before the command.

What's wrong with the following?

myDynamic =
#(define-music-function (parser location dyn) (markup?)
   (make-music 'AbsoluteDynamicEvent
               'text (cond
                      ((string? dyn)
                       (if (string-every char-set:dynamics dyn)
                           dyn
                           (markup #:dynamic-string dyn)))
                      (else dyn))))

moltoF = -\myDynamic "molto_f"

\relative c' {
  c1\moltoF
}

OK, so this isn't as clean a solution (and might confuse users who don't
understand the distinction between parser keywords and music function
identifiers), but it works fine.  It's good enough for things like \tweak and
\bendAfter so why make dynamics a special case?

Cheers,
Neil

[dak, 2010-09-15 20:39:19]

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel as well.

v.villenave@gmail.com writes:

> This commit adds a \dynamic command to the parser,
> which allows for straightforward dynamics such as
>
>   sffz = \dynamic sffz

An explicit dynamics defining command should likely offer a way to
specify the effect on midi as well.  Lilypond-notation contains a
section "Controlling MIDI dynamics" that also explains how to create a
new -\rfz command affecting MIDI volume as well.  But frankly: as an
extension interface, the presented method seems rather appalling.

-- 
David Kastrup

[valentin_villenave.net, 2010-09-17 13:01:09]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM,  <n.puttock@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's wrong with the following?
> moltoF = -\myDynamic "molto_f"

Hi Neil,
Duh. Had I thought of that, I might actually not have gone down this road :-)

> OK, so this isn't as clean a solution (and might confuse users who don't
> understand the distinction between parser keywords and music function
> identifiers), but it works fine.  It's good enough for things like
> \tweak and \bendAfter so why make dynamics a special case?

Indeed. However, I think you'll agree with me that it doesn't help
make the input syntax consistent: having to choose between postfix and
prefix notation, dash- or dashless commands, string arguments that
require double quotes, a hash or whatnot.

Such discussions surely can (and will) be delayed until GLISS. Looking
forward to it, actually ;)

In the meantime, I've opened
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1264

Cheers,
Valentin