Benkő Pál <benko....@gmail.com> writes: > 2012/10/27 <d...@gnu.org>: >> On 2012/10/27 20:34:35, benko.pal wrote: >> >>> I want staves with line-positions like (-2 0 2 4) work. > >> Why would somebody specify (-2 0 2 4) with the expectation that the >> results should be identical to (-3 -1 1 3)? Why would he not specify >> (-3 -1 1 3) in the first place then? How is something "working" when >> it nullifies what the user is trying to do? > > clefs: when specifying (-4 -2 0 2), you can use \clef alto or similar > to get a c-clef on the third line. in other words: when I want to > LilyPond-ize ancient music using four- or six-line staff, the expected > representation is a standard staff reduced or expanded by a line.
And? Why would looking at the line_count property then yield a wrong result? You are specifying a missing line in the line positions, but the overriden line count would still lead to the same positioning of clefs. Which would be exactly what was wanted. > I may well imagine that for some drumming applications the best > choice is a staff spaced by three, e.g. (-4 -1 2 5), because this way > every pitch in the range used is unambiguously assigned to a staff > line. A drum staff is not exactly going to need an alto clef. Or a divisioMaior line. I really have a hard time seeing just _what_ improvements we get over the 2.14 behavior. Is there any _real_ _existing_ problem that now works better than before? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
