Re: film score example

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 30/11/13 00:03, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> 2013/11/29 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> > Why not use the Unicode charpoints, like B♭, F♯ and so on?  They are
> > _supposed_ to go well with the text font and kern properly.
>
> because *we* have the most beautiful musical font in the world? ;-)
> I've looked at the output of
> \markup { B♭ F♯ }
> and it is *hideous* (see attached).  Totally unusable.

But if you go with text + Lilypond accidental glyphs, you have the challenge 
that the optimal combination will vary depending on the text font.  Not all of 
us stick with the default, you know :-)

That said, I agree with you that the use of these combinations of Unicode glyphs 
does not seem to work well (I tried out a few different fonts in LibreOffice 
just to compare and contrast; uck).

> 2013/11/29 Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden>:
> > Actually, I wonder if rather than special glyphs, it might be better to have
> > a function like \pitchText which takes a Lilypond pitch and transforms it
> > into an optimized textual form: so e.g. \pitchText{bf} or \pitchText{fs} or
> > whatever. (I'm using English note-names here.)
>
> Hmm.  IMO, we should first fix \flat, \sharp and \natural and then
> think about writing such function (since it would use these commands).

Amusing example for the size and baseline problems you mentioned: try,

    \markup{"Here are some accidentals: " \natural \sharp \flat}

... and see what you get :-)

It's just that so far as I can see the ways one might want flat/sharp/natural 
signs to be used in text are sufficiently different that no matter what the 
default position and size, there may need to be tweaking for a particular use. 
Hence why I suggest a dedicated function for pitch texts.

Anyway, let's be in touch off-list about sponsoring the text accidentals work 
you propose.