Dear Malte, > … Instead of using nested “if”s you could use cond:
Thank you. > I’m not 100% sure about the italian either but I think it’s > > 8th = ottava → 8va > 15th = quindicesima → 15ma > 22nd = ventiduesima → 22ma > 29th = ventinovesima → 29ma According to https://www.deepl.com/translator https://italian.tolearnfree.com/free-italian-lessons/free-italian-exercise-47886.php https://www.omniglot.com/language/numbers/italian.htm (ok, not the best references, but consistent) it goes on with -simo/-sima. Probably more constrained by the instruments than by the italian language :) trentaseiesimo quarantatreesimo cinquantesimo cinquantasettesimo sessantaquattresimo settantunesimo settantottesimo ottantacinquesimo novantaduesimo novantanovesimo centoseiesimo >> 2. nice line spanners (top- or bottom-aligned, dotted etc.) > That’s what Gould recommends, yes. But I’m not sure how to implement this: > One could > > a) use a single number/direction for “alta” ottavations and mirror it for > “bassa” → somehow inflexible and if you use a direction, it’s also confusing. > b) use a pair of numbers/directions → looks complicated but IMO better than > a). > c) don’t have a grob property for that at all but just take the “natural” > alignment of the markup. You then would need to set everything different from > bottom-aligned by hand as in > \set Staff.ottavation = \markup \general-align #Y #UP "15" > > For cases a) and b) we would need a good name for that grob property. Any > ideas? > I find case c) the most elegant *iff* you don’t set ottavation by hand. This > would also need a good convert-ly rule for those who set it by hand in the > past. IIUC, c) is too fragile as you don’t know what the user defines for his markup. There are different vertical line positions in https://notat.io/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=522 and even though the bassa variants are not listed, I guess a pair of numbers is the better, because more flexible solution. Here are some naming propositions just from the top of my head: OttavaBracket.line-positions (plural hints at the pair of numbers) OttavaBracket.label-positions OttavaBracket.spanner-alignment OttavaBracket.self-alignment OttavaBracket.alignment-of-line-relative-to-label-when-raising-octaves¹ :) ¹ https://notat.io/download/file.php?id=2204&sid=ca4f821a2f70a7edbbba6aa46bc90f3a >> However, the reasoning in the SMuFL 1.3 specifications ("Implementation >> notes") about "ma" vs. "mb" convinced me that 15mb does not make sense >> and I’d suggest to use 15ma etc. as default setting. > > Hm … Gould recommends 15ma and 22da (see above for 22ma vs. 22da) and lists > 8va, 8ba, 8va bassa as alternatives but not 8vb. I’ll search for real-world > engraved examples. Well, which is consistent with the above resoning, isn’t it? 8va/15ma also for bassa. Alternatively, 8ba or 8va bassa. But not 8vb/15mb even if it exists. >> I would even change the style to bold italic. > > This has nothing to do with ottavationMarkups, you can \override > Staff.OttavaBracket.font-series = #'bold and it will show the desired effect. > But maybe we should make this the default, yes. Yes, "… by default" was missing in my sentence. Of course, it’s easy to change as you say and I would not let the "bold italic by default" decision interfere with the other good changes you propose. > Combining these findings with those by John Ruggero > (https://notat.io/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=522) I’d vote for numbers only as > a default. I’ll make another patch set. +1 for numbers as default. That’s also what I found in scores (Schott, Boosey & Hawkes) when I looked for it some time ago. Will the new patch allow for easy way (without manually specifying all the markups) to switch to suffixed numbers (8va etc.)? Cheers, Joram _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
