Hi Harm,
Am 25.02.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Thomas Morley:
> So no bug, but a design decision.
>
> To have the 11th included, one needs to explicitely state it:
>
> \chords { e:11.13 }
>
> If this is not done, the printing as E⁹ ¹¹ is ok, imho.
As far as I understood Rob, the question is not so much about the 11 but
about the 9 in the printed chord name.
Wouldn't E¹³ be enough to name that chord? What does the ⁹ tell?
I am exaggerating a bit, but if
e:13 is E⁹ ¹¹
we could also label
e:7 as E¹ ³ ⁵ ⁷. It might of course be, that I am misunderstanding
the issue.
Cheers,
Joram
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
