Re: Bar numbers position

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> 2013/11/11 Gilberto Agostinho <address@hidden>:
>> I agree that she would not approve a solution that confuses with clef
>> transposition, but above the clef of the top stave is not what LilyPond is
>> doing, is it?
>>
>> Look at the solution that the Sibelius software uses:
>>
>> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n153706/sibelius.png>
>
> Do you realize that saying "sibelius is doing x" will make many
> LilyPond devs think "let's make sure LilyPond doesn't do x, because
> sibelius cannot possibly be right!"? ;-)

No idea about that.  I think "Finale does x" is worse in that respect.
At any rate, I find picture 1 fine, and the following pictures ugh.  Not
ambiguous, but awkward.  If I were not allowed as an engraver to place
the bar numbers to the left outside of the general inking area, I'd
probably move them to the right of the clef.  Which is still awful, but
less so.  At any rate, reason enough to _omit_ the clef modifier
altogether.  Or refuse typesetting for treble recorder.  Some people
would consider you a hero for that.

At any rate, you'll probably be hard put to find treble recorder notes
with "correct" clef, and the traditional bar number placement might be
part of the reason.

> Indeed, when done properly this style of numbering shouldn't be
> confused with clef transposition.  However, i agree with what David
> said in the other thread about LilyPond's barnumber positions being
> easier to see; as i don't think that Lilypond's way of placing
> barnumbers is wrong (i.e. it doesn't make scores difficult to read) i
> would keep it that way even if everyone else do it differently.

But "stay within inking box" is important enough that we should at least
have some standard command for that.  Do we?

-- 
David Kastrup