Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >>>> 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. >>> >>> I'm not a big fan of moving in this direction; your emails with >>> unicode included don't render properly on my email client. >> >> Nor mine. So I can't even understand the point you are trying >> to make. > > Actually, I like David's patch. It doesn't do any harm, and if > someone prefers to use it, it's there.
Well, the "doesn't do any harm" is not completely right: bug reports using this input syntax will be equally unreadable to some people as my patch has been. On the web, this looks like <URL:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/28039>. It probably depends on the fonts on the system (and these are probably rather newfangled) but it would appear that those on my system currently are zero-width and thus somewhat ugly to read. If your browser supports utf-8, such error reports might be reasonably readable using the web interfaces. When fixing problems with Hebrew and other lyrics, it is already hard to avoid having appropriate Unicode fonts installed. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
