On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Kieren MacMillan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Trevor,
>
> > I'd actually suggest changing out the default dynamics definitions
> > in the distro,
> > but not sure if that's the behavior anyone else would actually want.
>
> I actually reiterate a suggestion I made more than a year ago: I
> think Lilypond should align all markup (including dynamic text) to
> *BASELINES* rather than <whatever the current code says>. I find the
> same irritating workarounds required just to line up two adjacent
> markups, never mind dynamics.  =\
>
> To answer your implicit question explicitly... "YES, that's behaviour
> I would want!".  =)



Right: you're totally right that what we're wanting here is basline-aligned
dynamics. My scheme defs are just a hacked way of getting that.

In fact, come to think of it, I think it was a comment by Werner a year or
two ago to the effect of "yeah, baseline alignment leaves a lot to be
desired; maybe better to find another way of doing it" that lead me down the
other path ...

Dunno what's involved in alignment handling; font stuff is magic to me. If
HW or one of the metafont gurus ever decide to implement baseline alignment
for dynamics, I'll find a way to pony up some money!


:-)




-- 
Trevor Bača
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Reply via email to