lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fixes position of mensural c clef (issue 6503091)


From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: Fixes position of mensural c clef (issue 6503091)
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:44:17 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Werner LEMBERG" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fixes position of mensural c clef (issue 6503091)



[Has your mail containing scanned clef samples reached the list?  I
haven't received it yet.]

It arrivedback directly to me, but I've just noticed it didn't come via the mailing list. Perhaps it's too large (750k).

Link here: http://www.philholmes.net/lilypond/mensuralclefs.pdf

Your are changing the shape without documenting this fact.  And the
problem is not 0.1 staff space but loosing the vertical symmetry
for no good reasons.

My point is that there is no vertical symmetry in hand-drawn 15C
clefs, so there is no point it trying to recreate it in 21C machine
drawn clefs.

While I don't agree with this reasoning, this is not what I'm talking
about.

Whoever created the original clef made it arbitrarily symmetrical,
with no justification, so changing this needs no other
justification.

Again, you are missing my point.  It's not about justification, but
about *documentation*.  The description of your patch *must*
*document* what you are doing, especially if you are changing the
shape.  Looking at your code changes, this can't be deduced easily.

Regarding the shape: What are the reasons for changing it?  Do you
think that an asymmetrical clef looks better, coming nearer to
hand-written originals?  Then document it.  Or is it an artifact of
your first MF tries?  Then fix it :-)

OK.  OK.  Just to be sure.  You want me to fix it :-)

--
Phil Holmes



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]