On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think is this too complicated. For crescendos there are just > two possibilities - cresc. or hairpins - and for decrescendos > there are four - decresc., decr., dim or hairpin. That is, six > altogether, so why do we need eight commands? > > Based on Graham's proposal I would suggest the following > as logical and clear: > > \crescAsCresc > \crescAsHairpin > > and > \dimAsDecresc > \dimAsDecr > \dimAsDim > \dimAsHairpin
Hi Trevor, I really like this idea. I knew there was a more logical way to organize these commands. > If there is an objection to "Hairpin" perhaps "Graphic" would > do? IMO, "Hairpin" is better than "Graphic". -Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
