https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm File scm/parser-clef.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm#newcode96 scm/parser-clef.scm:96: ("petrucci-g2" . ("clefs.petrucci.g" -2 0)) On 2017/09/10 13:02:25, pkx166h wrote:
Is this correct?
I know nothing about ancient notation, but it seems that "petrucci-g2"
is
identical "petrucci-g" (below) apart from using 'g2' instead of 'g1'.
On a similar note I can see that petrucci-f and f4 also are identical
(and
produce the same output).
yes, this is all correct and intended. we could have petrucci-french instead of the new g1, but we don't have petrucci-violin (petrucci-alto, etc.) either -- so long we went with petrucci-c1 etc. now as I added the g1 variant, for consistency reasons seemed worthwile to have g2 as alias of g, just like petrucci-f4 is an alias of petrucci-f since long (I don't know which one was first, f or f4). I thought about introducing a petrucci-c alias to one of the c-clefs, but since all five are used frequently (and together -- in different parts), any choice would be rather confusing than logical. https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
