On 30/11/13 00:03, Janek Warchoł wrote:
2013/11/29 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
Why not use the Unicode charpoints, like B♭, F♯ and so on? They are
_supposed_ to go well with the text font and kern properly.
because *we* have the most beautiful musical font in the world? ;-)
I've looked at the output of
\markup { B♭ F♯ }
and it is *hideous* (see attached). Totally unusable.
But if you go with text + Lilypond accidental glyphs, you have the challenge
that the optimal combination will vary depending on the text font. Not all of
us stick with the default, you know :-)
That said, I agree with you that the use of these combinations of Unicode glyphs
does not seem to work well (I tried out a few different fonts in LibreOffice
just to compare and contrast; uck).
2013/11/29 Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net>:
Actually, I wonder if rather than special glyphs, it might be better to have
a function like \pitchText which takes a Lilypond pitch and transforms it
into an optimized textual form: so e.g. \pitchText{bf} or \pitchText{fs} or
whatever. (I'm using English note-names here.)
Hmm. IMO, we should first fix \flat, \sharp and \natural and then
think about writing such function (since it would use these commands).
Amusing example for the size and baseline problems you mentioned: try,
\markup{"Here are some accidentals: " \natural \sharp \flat}
... and see what you get :-)
It's just that so far as I can see the ways one might want flat/sharp/natural
signs to be used in text are sufficiently different that no matter what the
default position and size, there may need to be tweaking for a particular use.
Hence why I suggest a dedicated function for pitch texts.
Anyway, let's be in touch off-list about sponsoring the text accidentals work
you propose.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
