2013/11/30 Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net>:
> 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 :-)
Yes, but solving this in a systematic way would be a huge task. I
guess we'd have to make the markup commands choose between various
weights of feta font depending on the weight of the text font. Out of
reach now.
> Amusing example for the size and baseline problems you mentioned: try,
>
> \markup{"Here are some accidentals: " \natural \sharp \flat}
>
> ... and see what you get :-)
yup, it's ugly!
> 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.
We'll see. Currently it's wrong in every case, so if we make it good
in one case and "better than before" in other cases, i'll call that an
improvement :)
Jaenk
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
