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
