Re: Changing stem stencil

[Peter Bjuhr]

On 2014-02-28 22:18, Urs Liska wrote:
> That'd be great. Just come back to us when you're likely to get 
> started. I think this actually has _two_ sides: accessing SMuFL glyphs 
> on the one hand (as a practical way to extend Lily's own capabilities) 
> and the process of replacing a stencil. I think it would be really 
> good to have more tutorial like material about stuff like this to 
> encourage people to experiment in these directions.

I think I'd like to focus on how accessing SMuFL glyphs can solve some 
notational stuff like this and your question about the unstress symbol 
yesterday, if it's ok by you!? The other stuff can be an added bonus to 
the text.

Actually I've already scratch down an introduction and some structural 
ideas in a draft. Hope it's alright?
> > Another question is where would I put the snippet?
>
> I think it should be in the notation-snippets folder. Please have a 
> look and see how it relates to the existing overriding-stencils snippet.

Ok!
> > Is it ok if a snippet
> > is dependent of another snippet in the library or should all smufl stuff
> > be in the same folder?
>
> It's OK to have such dependencies - as long as they're documented.
> The repo/library is designed to be "includable". That means it is 
> intended to be in LilyPond's include path (as I wrote in my earlier 
> post). So basically when adding something to the library you can 
> assume that the whole library is available. You can include another 
> file either relatively from your snippet file or - and I'd prefer that 
> - with its complete path from the library root (which makes your 
> snippet more robust in case it should be moved to another directory).
> You should clearly state this dependency, something like this: "I 
> assume that the snippet is included as part of the library. If not you 
> have to get file X and ensure that the following \include points to 
> the right place."

I'll remember that!
> Urs

Best
Peter