On 30/11/13 21:38, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
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).
I've used markup like the below a few times. Looks acceptable with the
default font:
\markup\concat { "Sextet in B" \raise #0.35 { \tiny\flat } ", Op 18" }
I agree that the unicode flat symbol is not a good match for the rest of
the text when used here.
Nick
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
