Re: improving NR B.6 "The Feta Font"

[Mark Polesky]

Neil Puttock wrote:
> I like it.  Though it sacrifices a bit of maintainability, I
> think it's worth it when it looks so good.
>
> One thing I don't like is the (begin ...) form though, especially
> since there's no indentation for the helper functions inside.

I would've been shocked had you not mentioned it.

> Don't forget to include the petrucci and (neo)mensural glyphs. ;)

Neil,
you are the most thorough developer here. You find every last
little mistake, even in the most complicated situations. It's
great.

Carl Sorensen wrote:
> I like it a lot.
>
> Could the appendix be replaced with multiple snippets, each of
> which includes the main .ly you've written and then prints out
> only a piece of the list?
>
> That way, the headings would be in texinfo, instead of in
> lilypond markup.

Actually, I had that exact thought, but I couldn't figure out how
to do that. Certainly this wouldn't be done through font-table.ly,
right? It would have to be notation-appendices.itely, right? Could
you point me in the right direction? Show an example of how I would
make the first snippet?

Also, you guys don't mind that I got shape-note-noteheads the lazy
way? And no objections to the helper functions? I was also unable
to figure out how to simplify the repetitive markup stuff:

\markup \group-heading #"clefs"
\markuplines \override-lines #'(word-space . 4)
             \doc-chars #clefs

\markup \group-heading #"time signatures"
\markuplines \override-lines #'(word-space . 4)
             \doc-chars #timesig

...

I was imagining some cool markup trick like this:

\coolMarkupTrick
  #`(("clefs"           . ,clefs)
     ("time signatures" . ,timesig)
     ("accidentals"     . ,accidentals)
     ...)

But maybe it's a moot point if we agree texinfo-headings are
better. Do we all agree... Neil?

Thanks.
- Mark