Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-23 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Nick Payne writes: Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour better. What does the literature say? The great majority of commercial guitar scores I possess align the fingering vertically on chords, as 2.16 does. Which means that there is no strict agreement? The

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-23 Thread Thomas Scharkowski
Original-Nachricht Nick Payne writes: Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour better. What does the literature say? The great majority of commercial guitar scores I possess align the fingering vertically on chords, as 2.16 does. Which means

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-23 Thread Nick Payne
On 24/03/13 04:07, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Nick Payne writes: Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour better. What does the literature say? The great majority of commercial guitar scores I possess align the fingering vertically on chords, as 2.16 does. Which means

Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-22 Thread Nick Payne
See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't. \relative f'' { \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left) cis-1 a-1 e-14 } attachment: 2.16.2.pngattachment: 2.17.14.png___ bug-lilypond mailing list

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-22 Thread m...@mikesolomon.org
On 22 mars 2013, at 11:32, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't. \relative f'' { \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left) cis-1 a-1 e-14 } 2.16.2.png 2.17.14.png

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-22 Thread James
Nick/Mike On 22 March 2013 11:14, m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org wrote: On 22 mars 2013, at 11:32, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't. \relative f'' { \set

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-22 Thread Werner LEMBERG
See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't. \relative f'' { \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left) cis-1 a-1 e-14 } Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour better. What does the literature say? Werner

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-22 Thread Colin Hall
James writes: Nick/Mike On 22 March 2013 11:14, m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org wrote: On 22 mars 2013, at 11:32, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't. \relative f'' {

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-22 Thread Trevor Daniels
Werner LEMBERG wrote Friday, March 22, 2013 1:31 PM See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't. \relative f'' { \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left) cis-1 a-1 e-14 } Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new

Re: Fingering not aligned in 2.17, ok in 2.16

2013-03-22 Thread Nick Payne
On 23/03/13 00:31, Werner LEMBERG wrote: See below. In 2.16.2, the fingering indications are vertically aligned. In 2.17.14, they aren't. \relative f'' { \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left) cis-1 a-1 e-14 } Do you consider this a bug? Actually, I like the new behaviour better.