Am 06.10.2014 um 22:58 schrieb Owain Sutton: >> IMO opinion using these unicode symbols for sharps and flats is an >> interesting idea - but I personally will probably never use it. > > I agree, it's likely to remain a niche option. I don't see that as a reason > for > not including it though, and as for double-sharps, is "c♯♯" more problematic > than "cciscis"?
That’s a bit exaggerated. It is cisis in Dutch and German etc. And that’s just how you would call that note in these languages. So that’s a very natural choice. Back to the ♯ and ♭: I would also say: Why not integrate this into lilypond (even though I would not use it because I want to use the keys on my keyboard). In that case the double sharps should be done the same way: 𝄪 (U+1D12A) and 𝄫 (U+1D12B) Cheers, Joram _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
