On 23:58, Mon 06 Oct 2014, Noeck wrote: > Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 23:58:29 +0200 > From: Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de> > Subject: Re: Supporting ♯ and ♭ > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > List-Id: LilyPond user discussion <lilypond-user.gnu.org> > > 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. >
Hah, my mistake....which I never make when actually typing Lilypond code...the Dutch has become second nature, but only when actually in context. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
