[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Time signature markups
From: |
Dan Eble |
Subject: |
Re: Time signature markups |
Date: |
Sat, 1 Nov 2014 08:53:47 -0400 |
On Oct 29, 2014, at 13:01 , Hans Aberg <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:02, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Dan Eble wrote Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:34 AM
>>
>>> time-signature.cc <http://time-signature.cc/> has a comment at the top
>>> saying, “This file should go; the formatting can completely be done with
>>> markups.” Can anyone point me to a good example of that, or is it a unique
>>> idea?
>>
>> Well, that comment was placed in the file by Han-Wen in Sep 2003, so doing
>> it doesn't seem excessively urgent.
>
> One cannot have separate markups on clef, key and time signatures, because
> they end up at the same markup event time. So perhaps that calls for the
> opposite of the above mentioned file.
Please bear with my shallow knowledge of Lilypond. I’m not sure what action
you suggest.
Maybe because the comment is so old, there is a looser interpretation that is
still a good idea, like “this should be done in Scheme."
For example, I see that in define-grobs.scm, BarLine’s stencil property is
defaulted to ly:bar-line::print, which is defined in bar-line.scm. On the
other hand, ly:time-signature::print is defined in C++. Would I go wrong
trying to following BarLine?
Thanks,
—
Dan
- Re: Time signature markups,
Dan Eble <=