On 2019/02/23 22:40:44, dak wrote:
Sure, but you are trying to override stencils, aren't you? Why do you even place an entry for "script-stencil" then instead of just placing
an
entry for "stencil"?
Oh. I’ve been an idiot from the start: it simply never occurred to me that the script-alist definitions could include a straightforward stencil property (I thought script-stencil would take precedence). So the problem becomes a lot simpler now; users that want a new or modified articulation script (which there have been quite a few of over the years) may just do something like that: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=1087 and be done with it. I’m still bothered by the way script-interface.cc is written, specifically the hardcoded "feta" reference which I tried to address; do you have any thoughts on that? (Other than that, it appears there’s very little to salvage from my patch :-) V. https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
