For selfdescribing glyphs, is the following somewhat defensive approach
sensible, or should 𝄞 be equivalent to the whole \clef "G" sequence?
If the latter, it would need modifying the parser, right? That would
have the advantage that note lengths like 𝅘𝅥𝅰 could also be employed,
pitches written like B𝄫, rests including length as 𝄽, and other
niceties.
diff --git a/scm/parser-clef.scm b/scm/parser-clef.scm
index 2f17701..3099ca8 100644
--- a/scm/parser-clef.scm
+++ b/scm/parser-clef.scm
@@ -26,15 +26,22 @@
("G" . ("clefs.G" -2 0))
("G2" . ("clefs.G" -2 0))
("french" . ("clefs.G" -4 0))
+ ("𝄞" . ("clefs.G" -2 0))
+ ("𝄟" . ("clefs.G" -2 7))
+ ("𝄠" . ("clefs.G" -2 -7))
("soprano" . ("clefs.C" -4 0))
("mezzosoprano" . ("clefs.C" -2 0))
("alto" . ("clefs.C" 0 0))
("C" . ("clefs.C" 0 0))
+ ("𝄡" . ("clefs.C" 0 0))
("tenor" . ("clefs.C" 2 0))
("baritone" . ("clefs.C" 4 0))
("varbaritone" . ("clefs.F" 0 0))
("bass" . ("clefs.F" 2 0))
("F" . ("clefs.F" 2 0))
+ ("𝄢" . ("clefs.F" 2 0))
+ ("𝄣" . ("clefs.F" 2 7))
+ ("𝄤" . ("clefs.F" 2 -7))
("subbass" . ("clefs.F" 4 0))
("percussion" . ("clefs.percussion" 0 0))
("tab" . ("clefs.tab" 0 0))
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
