Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes:
> On 7/9/10 8:07 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Still, I think that the inner point of the angle (left by one slanted
>> line width compared with the pull symbol) of the push symbol is a
>> reasonably looking reference point for visual alignment with the left of
>> a given notehead.
>
> OK, done.
Looks good.
> I've attached two files.
>
> The first, acctest3.pdf, shows the glyphs with the new settings.
>
> The second, accordion-test.pdf, shows that more than this markup will be
> required. The code below was used to generate accordion-test.pdf:
>
> pull = \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.accordion.pull"}
>
> push = \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.accordion.push"}
Not sure whether it is a good idea to have a separate subcategory when
there is already a top hierarchy "accordion". Are there other
instruments to push and pull? Maybe just scripts.pull and scripts.push?
Or scripts.pushbellows in analogy with scripts.upbow?
By the way, can one introduce alias names? We have names like
accordion.accFreebase which are quite absurd, containing two instances
of "acc" and missspelling "free bass". Migrating to a saner glyph name
would be a worthwhile longterm goal.
> Note that the fingering numbers show up over the noteheads, while the sample
> piece shows the fingering numbers in a stack over the right-hand notehead.
>
> Also, the bellows indications are above the fingering numbers, rather
> than to the side of them.
Yup.
> Anyway, I thought it was worth a try to see how much needs to be done
> for the major bounty.
Looks closer than I thought. Likely the devil is in the details...
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
