It would not, because the accidentals I use are in an open system of just intonation (not a fixed scale) in which *any* conceivable ratio can be represented (so long as I have the module for its respective prime factors). This is a serious limitation of a lot of systems, in that the moment you start getting into primes above, say, 17 (or even to certain combinations of them), there are no accidentals to represent them, and you're back to using numbers in markups.
My endgame here is to make stencils for each prime factor up to 512 (so, 2^10, thus ten octaves, of which there are about 100 primes [which seems felicitous]), so that you can represent any conceivable fraction up to a ridiculous complexity, on the fly, within Lily. In that context, it makes much more sense (so far as I can tell) to make individual stencils for each prime, and then arrange them for the accidentals as needed. I suppose, rather than having Lily/Scheme calculate prime factors on the fly at runtime, it would be easier to have a lookup table of the prime factorization for each integer up to a certain limit (but that would end up being very high, so maybe not). That's a computational problem for further down the road, though. For now, I'll get to fiddling with Inkscape and trying to make some stencils, so I can at least show what I'm talking about. Cheers, A On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Johan Vromans <jvrom...@squirrel.nl> wrote: > > Anyway, that’s how I’ve done this kind of thing. It’s not simple but it > > works! > > If I understand the procedure correctly, wouldn't it be easier to use a > tool like fontforge add/adjust font glyphs? > > -- Johan > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
